Panel 1 Video
Panel 2 Video
Panel 3 Video
Panel 4 Video
John A. Lovett
Acquisitive prescription is a time-honored institution in civil law property regimes generally and in Louisiana property law in particular. Precarious possession is an equally important concept. A recent Louisiana Supreme Court decision, Boudreaux v. Cummings, 167 So.2d 3d 599 (La. 2015), has raised important questions about the intersection of acquisitive prescription and precarious possession in Louisiana law. This article reconstructs the law of precarious possession to answer some of those questions. It traces how Louisiana’s two-tier institution of good and bad faith acquisitive prescription emerged from Roman law and pre-codification French and Spanish law, discusses how French commentators interpreted their codified version of that law and approached the problem of precarious possession with caution, and defends the continuing viability of Louisiana’s two-tier institution of acquisitive prescription. The article then reviews a significant body of Louisiana case law addressing precarious possession in the context of possessory actions and acquisitive prescription. It demonstrates that in two categories of cases—those involving true strangers and persons involved in contractual or legal status relationships—Louisiana courts reach defensible and consistent outcomes. But it argues that in a third category of cases—those involving neighbors who know each other well or members of the same close-knit community—courts face acute challenges and produce inconsistent results. The article contends that to resolve this third category of cases with greater sensitivity to the virtue of property sharing and to the specific relational context of these disputes, Louisiana law would benefit from the adoption of a presumption of sharing and concomitant indicia of giving or renunciation.
This Article explores the problems associated with school exclusion as a response to bullying in light of the complicated nature of the problem and the attendant First Amendment concerns. It argues in favor of drawing on First Amendment jurisprudence, particularly by deconstructing rationales for the deference afforded schools to suppress student speech, to develop better, more comprehensive legal approaches to combatting bullying that also address those First Amendment concerns. In doing so, it also seeks to fill a gap in the literature on bullying. Although scholars have explored the limits that the Constitution, including the First Amendment, places on antibullying laws, they have not done so in light of the complicated nature of the problem, the interventions called for in response, or by examining the rationales for public school deference to suppress student speech.
Frederick R. Parker Jr.
This Article addresses the specific issue of how the Louisiana Act might inform the question of whether, or in what circumstances, treatment can be so futile that a patient has no positive right to receive it. As this issue most commonly arises in the context of permanently incapacitated patients whose surrogates speak on their behalf, it would be appropriate to first consider the relevance of a patient’s decisional capacity to the question. As a preliminary matter, this Article begins by discussing the concept of personhood and the relevance of capacity to the right of a severely incapacitated patient to accept or refuse treatment.
Robert Greenleaf Brice & Katrina L. Sifferd
This Article examines the domestic use of drones by law enforcement to gather information. First, Part I considers the Fourth Amendment and the different legal standards of proof that might apply to law enforcement drone use. Part II then explores philosopher Wittgenstein’s notion of actional certainty. Part III discusses how the theory of actional certainty can apply to the Supreme Court and its epistemic challenge of determining what is a “reasonable” expectation of privacy. This Part also investigates the Mosaic Theory as a possible reading of the Fourth Amendment.
Currently, a woman in Louisiana has several methods to claim wage discrimination, including filing a claim under federal or state law. However, these laws are insufficient and do not offer adequate protections to employees, specifically because Louisiana operates under two equal pay regimes, thus affording better protections to one group of working women over others. Louisiana employees need a new statutory regime that is efficient, clear, and gives all employees equal rights and protections regardless of gender or employer. This regime should provide protection to both public and private employees in Louisiana. Therefore, the Louisiana Legislature should modify and pass Senate Bill 219, which failed during the 2015 Regular Legislative Session.
Eric R. Harper
Have you ever wanted to look into a crystal ball and predict the future Although not always accurate, most companies have the ability to look into their “crystal ball” and make predictions for the future of the business. Companies may disclose this forward-looking information to shareholders or potential investors, but may also choose not to unveil the crystal ball, considering that the predictions could have a negative impact on their current stock prices. If a company’s investors suspect a company’s statements were materially false or misleading, the investors may bring a securities fraud class action lawsuit, claiming the company omitted certain material forward-looking information that likely would have had a negative impact on revenues and profits.
Melissa J. Shaffer
Part I of this Comment provides an overview of the FMLA and corresponding federal regulations, focusing on the purpose of the 2009 revisions and the policy concerns underlying the FMLA. Part II examines the ambiguous language of the FMLA notice provisions and the conflicting jurisprudence in cases of unforeseeable leave, examining each element of notice—timing, content, and form. Part III analyzes the implications of the current state of the law on employers and employees. Part IV argues that Congress should amend the Code of Federal Regulations to include a two-step notice process in cases of unforeseeable leave to clarify the law and provide employers and employees with more consistency and security.
Mackenzie Catherine Schot
Part I of this Comment provides an overview of the erratic history of state taxation under the dormant Commerce Clause. Part II explains the divided Supreme Court’s most recent analysis in Comptroller of the Treasury of Maryland v. Wynne. Finally, Part III argues that the Court correctly chose the internal consistency test as the leading standard but should have presented its final decision more clearly.
We are proud to announce and congratulate the Junior Associates who were selected to the Volume 78 Board of Editors. The Volume 77 Board received excellent candidates, and we thank everyone for applying. Serving on the Board of Editors of the Louisiana Law Review is a singular honor, and we wish the best of luck to the new Board!
Executive Senior Editor
Sports and Gaming Law:
What can NCAA athletes say on social media?
What is the future of fantasy football?
Are student athletes employees and should they be paid as such?
What law governs riverboat casinos?
On January 27, the LSU Law Center, the Pugh Center for Justice, and experts from across the country will discuss and analyze these complex issues in the sports and gaming industries. Please join us for this exciting Symposium. This Symposium qualifies for 7 free CLE credits in Louisiana and lunch is provided. See you there!
Register here: https://www.law.lsu.edu/symposium/
Arthur L. Rizer III
This Article explores the relationship between national security and immigration law—and, specifically, how immigration as the proverbial “bogeyman” has steered immigration law. Part I discusses the definition of national security, as defining it is a prerequisite to discussing its implications on immigration law. Part II provides a historical backdrop of national security and shows how events throughout history have sparked “fear” that has led to legal action. Part III of this Article provides the reader with a picture of the current legal framework of immigration law, including provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. By examining provisions of the Act and peripheral legal issues, such as providing “material support to terrorist organizations,” this Part addresses the national security questions of protecting the borders, population control, and the very essence of the rule of law. Last, Part IV of this Article explores the conflict between individual rights and national security. This Part attempts to answer the threshold question of whether it is appropriate that our national security interests and perhaps exaggerated fear should drive the development and implementation of immigration law.
Paul A. Diller
This Article takes a different tack: it impugns the democratic legitimacy of the federal and state lawmaking processes from the perspective of large and densely populated urban areas. More specifically, this Article explains why the federal and state governments fail to represent the median voter, and how this failure systematically disadvantages the views of big-city residents. At the federal level, the anti-urban dynamic is most pronounced in Congress. Hence, the urban-centered majority that succeeded in electing a president in 2008 and 2012 has been stymied by a Congress that underweights urban votes. For example, despite more than 90% of the U.S. population supporting increased gun regulation after the Newtown school shooting—with support at its highest in urban areas—Congress failed to produce any meaningful legislative response. Although less obvious, many state legislatures shortchange the views of urban residents in favor of more rural and exurban voters. Thus, although a majority of a state’s voters might prefer to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, for instance, a state legislature’s anti-urban skew helps block any such expansion if the pro-expansion majority is concentrated in urban areas.
This Article proposes an innovative federal tax solution that offers a maneuver around state roadblocks that would eliminate unfair taxation across every state in one fell swoop: the progressive state tax credit (“PSTC”). The basic idea is to give poorer households a 100% credit for all of their estimated state tax payments, including income, sales, and property taxes. As income rises, the percent of the credit would decline, and the most affluent households would pay a “negative credit” or surcharge to fund the tax relief for their lower income counterparts. The PSTC is especially well-suited to counteract, at least partially, growing American income inequality.
Although many countries oppose the EACL, asserting that it violates international law, others utilize the EACL but often in different ways. The international approach to the EACL is not unified and fails to recognize that some countries still adopt a “double standard” for the EACL, which occurs when one country opposes the application of another country’s law within its territory but seeks to apply its own law to other countries extraterritorially. This Article explains that the extraterritorial application of competition law by a country to acts that occur outside its territory is not contrary to international law if that application is properly limited. The EACL should be the unilateral action of one country only when the affected countries fail to find a common solution for a cross-border competition issue. Ultimately, this Article further proposes a model that should be applied to limit the extraterritorial jurisdiction of competition law. This model would require a country to scrutinize the link between the alleged act and its country and consider the interstate interests involved before deciding to exercise its jurisdiction.
Part I of this Comment provides a brief overview of summary judgment, the process for making the motion, and the history of the procedure in both federal and Louisiana state courts. Part II discusses the revisions made to Article 966 during the 2015 legislative session, focusing in particular on the changes to the timing and briefing deadlines, the required evidentiary procedure, the effects of partial summary judgment, and the changes to the appeals process. Part III analyzes the practical effects of the 2015 revisions on summary judgment procedure. Finally, Part IV addresses some remaining concerns and urges Louisiana courts and practitioners to make motions for summary judgment an integral part of trial preparation, ensuring that the process remains efficient and that the changes brought by the 2015 revisions are not undermined by delay.
The disparity among the circuits evidences the need for a solution that will create uniformity in the application of the touch and concern doctrine. Part I of this Comment provides a brief introduction to the history and scope of the ATS. Part II examines the unresolved issue of corporate liability under the ATS by exploring the holdings of seminal cases. Part III proposes three factors that courts should utilize in determining whether a claim sufficiently “touches and concerns” the United States: first, the citizenship of the defendant; second, the location of the conduct; and third, the nature of the alleged violation. Utilization of these factors will provide corporations with greater certainty regarding their liability for business conducted overseas and provide clarity to a statute that has been engulfed by ambiguity since its inception.
This Comment does not argue that hydraulic fracturing is inherently dangerous, nor that its use should be restricted, but instead discusses several issues that have arisen from the practice, including the potential for increased risk as the shale boom continues. It argues that Louisiana should apply a mixed regulatory strategy beginning with requiring baseline water testing and promoting best-practices regulations as standards develop or when issues arise, which will protect both the industry and the landowners. Part I explains hydraulic fracturing and contamination while also demonstrating that hydraulic fracturing is essential to Louisiana and the United States. Part II discusses the theories of liability available to injured landowners and the evidentiary requirements’ prevention of an equitable resolution, regardless of whether strict liability is imposed. Part III illustrates Congress’s refusal to regulate the industry and demonstrates several states’ compensation for this lack of regulation, whereby states enact their own regulations. Part IV examines the issues from the perspectives of the landowner, the operator, and the State to develop a solution beneficial to all. This Comment concludes by proposing that Louisiana should require baseline water testing before hydraulic fracturing operations and use the data collected over time to establish best-practices regulations for the industry.
In January 2014, the College Athletic Players Association (“CAPA”) petitioned the National Labor Relations Board (the “NLRB”) to represent a collective bargaining unit consisting of scholarship football players at Northwestern University. In doing so, the athletes presented a novel question: are college athletes considered employees for purposes of federal labor law standards? If so, then these athletes are entitled to the rights prescribed to all employees under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), including the right to unionize and collectively bargain; if they are not employees, then they are excluded from coverage under the Act and are not entitled to any of the rights granted therein. Ultimately, the NLRB eluded the question for policy reasons. However, the question remains—what is the status of college athletes under federal labor law? This Comment attempts to predict the outcome of this important issue.