2024-03-29T09:49:06Zhttps://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/oai/requestoai:scholarsbank.uoregon.edu:1794/102812015-06-17T23:27:41Zcom_1794_691com_1794_7551com_1794_7550com_1794_384com_1794_3786com_1794_7561col_1794_18784col_1794_385col_1794_10194col_1794_18796col_1794_18805
Oregon Law Review : Vol. 88 No. 1, p.001-036 : Tribute to Professor Dominick Vetri
Page, Christopher R.
Scoles, Eugene F.
Mooney, Ralph James
Gassama, Ibrahim J.
Guido, Alpa
Paris, Margaret
Vetri, Dominick R.
36 p.
2010-03-16
2010-03-16
2009
Other
0196-2043
http://hdl.handle.net/1794/10281
en_US
University of Oregon Law School
oai:scholarsbank.uoregon.edu:1794/103732015-06-18T00:51:35Zcom_1794_3786com_1794_7561com_1794_7550col_1794_10194
Oregon Law Review : Vol. 88 No. 1, p.311-340 : Dueling Scientific Experts: Is Australia’s Hot Tub Method a Viable Solution for the American Judiciary?
Yarnall, Megan A.
Expert witnesses
Concurrent expert testimony
Hot tubbing
Courts -- Australia
Courts -- United States
Evidence, Expert
30 p.
Part I of this Comment examines the causes and challenges
associated with conflicting scientific experts. Part II identifies and
distinguishes common sources of bias that may further complicate the
evaluation of dueling expert testimony. Possible solutions to these
problems are explored in Part III, leading into an explanation of
Australia’s hot tub method and an evaluation of its strengths and weaknesses in Part IV. Part V discusses factors to consider in
determining whether or not particular testimony lends itself to the hot
tub procedure, while Part VI focuses specifically on ways the
procedure could further ease the evaluation of dueling scientific
expert testimony. Part VII identifies both the similarities and
differences between the American and Australian court systems, as
well as the differences that materially affect the applicability of the
hot tub in the United States. Part VIII addresses some of these
difficulties and suggests modifications to adapt the hot tub method to
the American courts.
2010-05-19
2010-05-19
2009
Article
0196-2043
http://hdl.handle.net/1794/10373
en_US
University of Oregon Law School
oai:scholarsbank.uoregon.edu:1794/103712015-06-18T00:51:41Zcom_1794_3786com_1794_7561com_1794_7550col_1794_10194
Oregon Law Review : Vol. 88 No. 1, p.195-254 : Employees on Guard: Employer Policies Restrict NLRA-Protected Concerted Activities on E-mail
O'Brien, Christine Neylon
United States. National Labor Relations Act
National Labor Relations Act
Electronic mail messages
Email
E-mail
60 p.
This Article explores the issues relating to policies that cover use
of company equipment and systems, especially restrictions on e-mail,
and how these policies may be legally problematic if they interfere
with the National Labor Relations Act, which governs the right,
among others, to engage in union activities. This Article focuses
upon the significance of the NLRB’s Register-Guard I decision, the
legal basis and sources cited by the majority in support of its decision,
the arguments of the dissenting members, and the General Counsel’s
recent applications of the majority’s discrimination standard in
Register-Guard I. Why the Board’s decision in Register-Guard I was
appealed and restricted is discussed, taking into account precedent
under the NLRA and the current status and uses of e-mail.15 This Article questions the legality of workplace communication systems
policies that permit non-business uses of communications systems yet
also prohibit concerted activity and union-related communications
among employees. The distinctions appear to be based upon
disfavored content, involving protected concerted activity, rather than
legally relevant distinctions that pertain to legitimate business
reasons. The Article concludes that the NLRB needs to modernize its
rules to embrace the realities of electronic communication and
suggests a standard for balancing employees’ NLRA rights with
employers’ legitimate business reasons relating to production,
discipline, or other modern-day equivalents.
2010-05-19
2010-05-19
2009
Article
0196-2043
http://hdl.handle.net/1794/10371
en_US
University of Oregon Law School
oai:scholarsbank.uoregon.edu:1794/102832015-06-17T23:27:07Zcom_1794_3786com_1794_7561com_1794_7550col_1794_10194
Oregon Law Review : Vol. 88 No. 1, p.095-156 : James Buchanan as Savior? Judicial Power, Political Fragmentation, and the Failed 1831 Repeal of Section 25
Graber, Mark A.
Judicial power -- United States -- History -- 19th century
Jacksonian America
62 p.
The following pages explore how judicial review survived the
transition from the deferential politics of the National
Republican/Federalist era to the partisan politics of Jacksonian
America. Part I details the political foundations of federal judicial
power, particularly the crucial role section 25 of the Judiciary Act of
1789 played in establishing and maintaining the Supreme Court’s
power to declare state—and federal—laws unconstitutional. Part II
explains why the transition from Federalist to National Republican
rule during the beginning of the nineteenth century posed little threat
to judicial authority. Part III discusses the Jacksonian challenge to
federal judicial power, why that challenge failed in 1831, and why
that challenge was largely abandoned by 1837. Part IV points out
how political fragmentation explains the failure of both the
Jacksonian challenge to judicial power and the subsequent attacks on
the judiciary in American history. This analysis concludes that
judicial review is likely to become a permanent feature of the
constitutional landscape once established in a polity where power is
almost always fragmented.
2010-03-16
2010-03-16
2009
Article
0196-2043
http://hdl.handle.net/1794/10283
en_US
University of Oregon Law School
oai:scholarsbank.uoregon.edu:1794/102842015-06-17T23:27:35Zcom_1794_3786com_1794_7561com_1794_7550col_1794_10194
Oregon Law Review : Vol. 88 No. 1, p.157-194 : Legal Education and the Ecology of Cultural Justice: How Affirmative Action Can Become Race-Neutral by 2028
Dominguez, David
Affirmative action programs in education
38 p.
In this Article, I offer a provocative perspective on the future of
affirmative action in higher education. Given the revolutionary
opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education
and Hernandez v. Texas, and more recent Court rulings such as
Grutter v. Bollinger (Grutter), Parents Involved in Community
Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, and Meredith v. Jefferson
County Board of Education (collectively Parents Involved), I take
issue with both sides in the current debate. End or defend? Neither
side is facing reality.
2010-03-16
2010-03-16
2009
Article
0196-2043
http://hdl.handle.net/1794/10284
en_US
University of Oregon Law School
oai:scholarsbank.uoregon.edu:1794/102822015-06-17T23:27:26Zcom_1794_3786com_1794_7561com_1794_7550col_1794_10194
Oregon Law Review : Vol. 88 No. 1, p.037-094 : The New Battleground of Museum Ethics and Holocaust-Era Claims: Technicalities Trumping Justice or Responsible Stewardship for the Public Trust?
Kreder, Jennifer Anglim
Terezin Declaration
1998 Washington Conference Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art
Museums
Museum ethics
Displaced art
Art confiscations
58 p.
In contrast to the optimistic hopes in 1998 to settle all claims
expressed, we have seen a new trend emerge whereby current
possessors of art displaced during the Holocaust, including museums,
have been the first to file suit to quiet title, raising technical
defenses. This Article will explore this recent trend, the reasons for
it, and the consequences resulting from it. Part I will provide lesser known
historical background missing from the mainstream legal
literature. Parts II through VI will lay out the reasons for and progression of the restitution and declaratory judgment movement in
Nazi-era art cases. Part VII discusses the consequences of the
movement and offers best practices for the future for both claimants
and present-day possessors.
2010-03-16
2010-03-16
2009
Article
0196-2043
http://hdl.handle.net/1794/10282
en_US
University of Oregon Law School
oai:scholarsbank.uoregon.edu:1794/103722015-06-18T00:51:38Zcom_1794_3786com_1794_7561com_1794_7550col_1794_10194
Oregon Law Review : Vol. 88 No. 1, p.225-310 : Marine Protected Areas as a Mechanism to Promote Marine Mammal Conservation: International and Comparative Law Lessons for the United States
Abate, Randall S.
Marine mammals -- Conservation -- United States
Marine parks and reserves -- United States
Marine protected areas
56 p.
Part I of this Article discusses the role of Marine Protected Areas as a viable strategy
to enhance protection of marine mammals in U.S. waters. It examines
the synergy between marine mammal conservation goals and the
promotion of biodiversity protection, recreation, and tourism. Part I also examines how enhanced use of MPAs for marine mammal
protection can be readily harmonized with existing federal regulatory
schemes that govern marine mammals to achieve a “win-win”
outcome.
Part II addresses common failures of MPAs, such as the need to
address flaws in MPA objectives, monitoring, and enforcement
measures, and how the lack of a national system of MPAs can
undermine the need to promote the objectives of MPAs in a consistent
and comprehensive manner.
Part III considers how other countries, most notably New Zealand
and Spain, are taking leadership roles in establishing more effective
marine mammal conservation measures within their MPAs. It
examines how Spain has done particularly well in its monitoring
efforts, whereas New Zealand has excelled in developing and
implementing an effective national system of MPAs.
Part IV addresses international law regulatory strategies in the
fisheries management and carbon trading contexts to advocate for
both enhanced international cooperation and regional implementation
and enforcement of MPAs.
Part V identifies the shortcomings of the existing MPA system in
the United States. It then offers recommendations for how MPAs in
the United States can be used more effectively to promote marine
mammal protection in U.S. waters and beyond, which will enable the
United States to become a more significant part of the solution to this
international crisis.
2010-05-19
2010-05-19
2009
Article
0196-2043
http://hdl.handle.net/1794/10372
en_US
University of Oregon Law School