Oregon Law Review : Vol. 95, No. 1 (2016)

Permanent URI for this collection

Browse

Recent Submissions

Now showing 1 - 6 of 6
  • ItemOpen Access
    Diamond Justice—Teaching Baseball and the Law
    (University of Oregon School of Law, 2017-03-30) Edmonds, Ed
    Book review: BASEBALL AND THE LAW: CASES AND MATERIALS. Louis H. Schiff and Robert M. Jarvis. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, 2016
  • ItemOpen Access
    The Continued Exploitation of the College Athlete: Confessions of a Former College Athlete Turned Law Professor
    (University of Oregon School of Law, 2017-03-30) Grenardo, David A.
    Should college athletes receive more compensation because of the revenues they generate for their respective universities?
  • ItemOpen Access
    Dialogical Transactions
    (University of Oregon School of Law, 2017-03-30) Zemer, Lior
    This Article argues that scholars and the courts were unaware of a fundamental element defining the social reality of contemporary copyright and aims to remedy this lack of awareness. It articulates an innovative approach to copyright by arguing that works of art and authorship are expressions of dialogical transactions both between and among artists and authors, and between them and the public. These transactions have become a defining virtue of cultures that create and distribute the properties of social life through networks of information.
  • ItemOpen Access
    Shadow Judges: Staff Attorney Adjudication of Prisoner Claims
    (University of Oregon School of Law, 2017-03-30) Macfarlane, Katherine A.
    This Article is the first to investigate the scope of the delegation to pro se staff and to consider corresponding separation of powers concerns. Local procedure that delegates this deciding judicial power to pro se staff has gone too far. Local procedure crafts rules for prisoner litigation that conflict with federal law, effectively denying access to an Article III judge. When federal courts overreach in this manner, their rulemaking exceeds the limited rulemaking authority Congress has delegated to the judiciary. This local procedure also violates federal policy, which generally disfavors allowing nonjudicial actors to perform judicial tasks. This Article concludes with recommendations about how to solve the delegation problem.
  • ItemOpen Access
    Why Vague Sentencing Guidelines Violate the Due Process Clause
    (University of Oregon School of Law, 2017-03-30) Heilman, Kelsey McCowan
    The United States Sentencing Guidelines (the Guidelines) are used to calculate sentencing ranges for roughly 75,000 defendants each year. Despite that ubiquity, the law is unsettled on a very basic question: whether the Guidelines trigger defendants’ rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Specifically, the federal courts of appeals are split regarding whether use of a vague Guideline at sentencing deprives the defendant of liberty without due process of law. Do defendants have a due process right to Guidelines provisions that can be interpreted with reasonable precision? This Article takes a historical, jurisprudential, and pragmatic approach to that question, examining the roots of the Guidelines, the changes wrought by the shift from mandatory to advisory Guidelines, and the continuing effect of the Guidelines on federal sentencing practice.
  • ItemOpen Access
    Overturning Apodaca v. Oregon Should Be Easy: Nonunanimous Jury Verdicts in Criminal Cases Undermine the Credibility of Our Justice System
    (University of Oregon School of Law, 2017-03-30) Kaplan, Aliza B.; Saack, Amy
    In 1934, Oregon amended its Constitution to allow, “that in the circuit court ten members of the jury may render a verdict of guilty or not guilty, save and except a verdict of guilty for first degree murder, which shall be found only by unanimous verdict.” Oregon became the second state, after Louisiana, to allow nonunanimous juries in criminal cases. Louisiana’s “Majority Rule,” passed in 1880, three years after Reconstruction when white landowners sought to replace black slave labor. The new law allowed juries to convict defendants without a unanimous vote and was deliberately designed to create more convicts to increase the labor force. Making convictions easier meant more prisoners, especially freed blacks, and more prisoners meant more labor to lease for profit. Passed some fifty-four years later and under different circumstances, Oregon’s history is also shameful.
©University of Oregon School of Law, 1515 Agate St, Eugene, OR, 97403 Phone: (541) 346-3852