§§ HOME        §§ CONTACT US

§§ Florida BLawg Review



§§ Announcements

 

The Florida Law Review is not currently accepting Article submissions, but we will be accepting submissions again in August 2009.

FLORIDA LAW REVIEW STUDENT NOTES & COMMENTS SELECTED FOR PUBLICATION

The Florida Law Review is pleased to announce the selection of 8 notes and 3 comments for publication in its 2009-10 issues. Vincent Galluzzo's note on P2P litigation was the winner of the Best Note of 2009 award. Kristen Rasmussen's comment on false light in Florida was selected as Best Comment of 2009. The notes and comments will be available in a print copy of Florida Law Review, as well as published on www.floridalawreview.com in the month they are printed.  Check the Student Works page for a list of the winning notes & comments.

ALUMNI!

Keep up with the latest news about the Florida Law Review and alumni on Florida Blawg Review >>> www.floridalawreview.com/blog


Larry Dougherty wins ABA Antitrust Section Writing Prize >>> more on Florida BLawg Review


Florida Law Review Elects Editors for 2009-10 >>> more


Dunwody Lecture Webcast: Akhil Amar discusses Bush, Gore and Florida's role in the 2000 election >>> more



§§ Current Issues

FLORIDA LAW REVIEW

Vol. 61              April 2009                No. 2
Masthead
§§ ARTICLES
The Real Value of Tax Deferral                                
Christopher H. Hanna       
[PDF]

A leading law professor wrote a quarter-century ago that deferral of gain "is not as serious as outright exemption, but it is the next best thing." Few tax law academics would disagree. But how important is tax deferral in the real world, particularly with respect to the Fortune 500 companies and other publicly held corporations, on which I focus and refer to as "Corporate America"?
State Standing after Massachusetts v. EPA             
Calvin Massey                  
[PDF]

By granting states "special solicitude in our standing analysis," the Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. EPA created substantial new uncertainty in the law of standing.  Article III’s limitation of federal jurisdiction to "cases" or "controversies" has required a litigant to plead and prove actual or imminent personal injury in fact that is "fairly traceable" to the defendant’s conduct and that will be redressed by the requested relief. This "irreducible constitutional minimum"—injury in fact, causation, and redressability—establishes the core of standing. As limits upon the federal judicial power, these elements necessarily apply to all litigants. After EPA, however, the meaning of these elements vary with the litigant and the type of claim presented.

Perpetual Property                                                  
Sarah Harding          
[PDF]

Property interests, unlike contracts, tend to adhere to a limited set of specific forms—the numerus clausus principle. Much scholarship in the past decade has focused on this distinction in an attempt to understand both the nature of and the reasons for the limitation on property forms within the common law. While these limitations on form are central to the common law, equally significant are the temporal limitations embedded in property law—property interests typically exist for a specific time period. Even the fee simple, a property interest of supposedly infinite duration, is limited in time by several overarching rules often referred to as "rules furthering marketability."
 

§§ Student Notes

Passenger Standing to Challenge Searches and Seizures: A Distinction Without a Constitutional Difference
Dante P. Trevisani                 
 [PDF]

The U.S. Supreme Court has adhered to the view, announced in Rakas v. Illinois, that automobile passengers do not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of a search of the car.  That is, if the police search a car in violation of the Fourth Amendment, the evidence will inadmissible against the driver of the car, but admissible against the passenger. However, the Court has also held, confirmed recently in Brendlin v. California, that passengers do have standing to challenge the constitutionality of seizures of the passenger during traffic stops.  
        Trevisani's Note argues that this distinction is unjustified and has no basis in the policy and purpose behind the Fourth Amendment.  It creates an illogical distinction between the consequences of illegal searches and seizures, and does not reflect a proper Fourth Amendment analysis.  This Note then explores the Court's general inability to perceive the public's "reasonable" expectations in the search and seizure context.  Finally, this Note argues that a proper resolution would be to properly apply the passenger standing doctrine and declare that passengers do have standing to challenge illegal searches of automobiles, because passengers have reasonable expectations of privacy in the cars in which they ride.  
 

Teachers as Sexual Harassment Victims: The Inequitable Protections of Title VII in Public Schools
Richard D. Shane                        
[PDF]

Sexual harassment in public schools has been heavily scrutinized by the media in recent years.  In educational environments where students should feel safe and secure, they are often the victims of sexual harassment by both students and teachers.  Student victims of sexual harassment can recover monetary damages from their school districts under Title IX, which was enacted in 1972 to combat sex discrimination in educational institutions.  However, students are not always the victims. 

Richard Shane’s Note, “Teachers as Sexual Harassment Victims:  The Inequitable Protections of Title VII in Public Schools,” discusses how teachers who fall victim to sexual harassment at the hands of their students have no comparable recourse under Title VII, which prohibits sex discrimination in the workplace, or Title IX.  The author argues that victimized teachers, like employees in other work settings, should be protected by Title VII and given an opportunity to recover monetary damages. 
 

GINA: A Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Solution in Search of a Problem
Patricia Alten                              
 [PDF]

Genetic discrimination is unfair to workers and their families. It is unjustified—among other reasons, because it involves little more than medical speculation. A genetic predisposition toward cancer or heart disease does not mean the condition will develop. To address the potential use of genetic information by employers to discriminate against employees, Congress enacted the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA). This Note proposes the need for modifications to GINA before it is effective later in 2009. In its current state, the provisions relating to employers are overly broad and could catch many employers in unknowing violations. The author argues that although GINA prohibits employment discrimination, it does not cover all of America’s workers and may be inherently unfair when applied to those it does cover.

Current Issue:
April, 2009
Next Issue: July. 2009

Past Issues Online:

Jan. 2009, Vol. 61, No. 1
Dec. 2008, Vol. 60, No. 5
Sept. 2008 Vol. 60 No. 4

July 2008 Vol. 60 No. 3

§§ Hot Topics

§§ Florida Law Review Articles and Notes on Election Law

§§ Constitutional Law Article with Audio Files

Constitutional Advocacy Explains Constitutional Outcomes   Stephen A. Higginson

 

Blogroll

The Conglomerate Blog
Citizen Media Law Project

 

Florida Law Review, University of Florida Fredric G. Levin College of Law, 115 Holland Hall. P.O. Box 117637, Gainesville, FL 32611
Tel: 352.273.0670  Fax: 352.392.9641 Contact: Patricia Alten, Executive Communications Editor email: palten@ufl.edu

©2008-09 Florida Law Review. All rights reserved