In this episode of the Touro Law Review Podcast, our invited guest, renowned attorney, professor and writer, Alan Dershowitz, discusses the relationship between so-called “cancel culture” and the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Professor Dershowitz is joined in the podcast by: Prof. Peter Zablotsky as moderator; Georgia Reid, third-year law student and Online Editor of the Touro Law Review; and Professor Jorge R. Roig, who teaches Constitutional Law at the Touro Law Center.
Continue readingOvercentralization of Power and Pedestrian Fatalities: A Review of Professor Sara Bronin’s Upcoming Article
By Professor Michael Lewyn*
Over the past decade, the number of pedestrians killed by motor vehicles has increased by over 40 percent, while similar fatalities in Europe have become less common. Why are American streets so dangerous?
In an article[1] soon to be published in the Iowa Law Review, Sara Bronin of the University of Connecticut’s law school blames overcentralization of power. Prof. Bronin points out that across the nation, streets are designed according to standards set by small groups of private experts, whose work is usually not subject to input from the general public. These groups usually have no training in urban planning, and their work is often designed to make motor vehicle traffic run as smoothly and rapidly as possible. Their codes are often so expensive as to be inaccessible to the general public; for example, one widely adopted traffic planning manual costs $310 for a digital copy.
Continue readingThe Effect of Income Inequality on Virtual Education During the Coronavirus Pandemic
By Alanna Harte *
*Alanna is a graduating 3L at Touro Law Center. She currently serves as the marketing director for the Student Bar Association and is a legal intern at State Farm in their PIP department.
On January 7, 2020 the Chinese government confirmed that what was believed to be a cluster of pneumonia was the novel coronavirus.[1] By January 30, 2020, a total of 9976 cases had been reported in at least 21 countries.[2] This included the first confirmed case of Coronavirus infection in the United States, reported on January 20, 2020.[3] Without a clear understanding of what the virus was or how to treat it, nations closed non-essential businesses with the hope of containing it. This meant that engagements that had previously occurred in-person now moved to virtual platforms, including schooling. The year 2020 presented an unprecedented challenge for the world of education, particularly for children from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds.
Continue readingFair Pay or Unfair Play? Why California’s Decision to Pass Senate Bill 206 Violates the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution and The Sherman Antitrust Act
By Steven Neocleous*
*Steven Neocleous is currently a full-time third-year student at Touro College Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center. He last worked for the Nassau County Attorney’s Office in the Municipal Transactional/ Real Estate/ Financial Bureaus. Steven has a passion for sports which inspired him to use his knowledge from Constitutional Law and Sports Law to write this note. He hopes to use his law degree and prior work experience for a position at a real estate or corporate law firm after graduation.
Imagine a situation where you are a star high-school athlete. You recently received a full athletic scholarship to attend a prominent Stanford University, an institution, which you otherwise would not have had the opportunity to attend if it was not for your incredible athletic abilities. However, that is not all the school has awarded you. Not only do you have free housing, but you also have a full meal plan paid for by the University. Following an arduous day of practice, you are tired from all of the hard work you put in while you were basking in the hot summer California sun. All you want is a tasty beverage, so check your bank account and in it, is the image of $10,000 recently deposited by Hanes as payment for having your image on their new T-shirt. While for years, this appeared to be the work of fantasy, the recently passed California Senate Bill 206, more commonly known as The Fair Pay to Play Act, indicates that collegiate athletes are allowed to acquire endorsements and sponsorships while still maintaining athletic eligibility by prohibiting any California postsecondary education institution and athletic association or group to uphold rules, requirements, or limitation on the ability for California student-athletes to use their name, image, or likeness for their own profit.[1] While this decision may be satisfying on its face, its effects on a national scale are threatening the system created for universities in other states, student- athletes in those states, and the NCAA by violating the Commerce Clause and Sherman Anti-Trust Act.
Continue readingPODCAST: Personal Jurisdiction under the Roberts Supreme Court
Join us to learn about seminal personal jurisdiction cases and Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Ford in October 2020. As we await the Court’s decision, Professors Rodger Citron and Laura Dooley, who teach Civil Procedure, discuss the case with Professor Zablotsky, who teaches Torts.
Brought to you by the Touro Law Review.
Pennoyer v. Neff. International Shoe. Sound familiar? These seminal personal jurisdiction cases haunt the memories of first-year law students. For litigators, personal jurisdiction matters well after your first semester of law school.
Under Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court has taken an interest in personal jurisdiction doctrine. Currently pending before the Court is Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District (“Ford”), involving specific personal jurisdiction doctrine.
The Court heard oral argument in Ford in October 2020. As we await the Court’s decision, Professors Rodger Citron and Laura Dooley, who teach Civil Procedure, met online to discuss the case with Professor Peter Zablotsky in a podcast sponsored by the Touro Law Review.
Continue readingProtecting the Benefit of a Seller’s Bargain in Real Estate Contracts
By Matthew Ingber*
Originally published in Volume 30 | Number 3 in 2014 in the Touro Law Review
*Matthew is an associate attorney at Brown Altman & DiLeo, LLP and handles all matters involving land use and zoning law, municipal law, commercial and residential transactional real estate, and commercial litigation. Matthew has obtained municipal approvals throughout Long Island for national restaurant chains, gasoline station retailers, and alternative energy companies. Matthew graduated summa cum laude from Touro Law Center in 2015. He was a member of the Touro Law Review and served as an Issue Editor.
I. INTRODUCTION
Courts measure damages for breach of a real estate contract based on the difference between the contract price and the fair market value of the property at the time of the breach,[1] which seeks to protect the injured party’s expectation interest.[2] This measure usually provides an injured seller with an adequate remedy in the event of a buyer’s breach[3] but “[i]n some cases, the actual loss suffered as a result of a breach exceeds the amount yielded by that formula.”[4] In American Mechanical v. Union Machine Co.,[5] the buyer contracted to purchase the vendor’s real estate for $100,000.[6] The property was then resold for $55,000, and the seller sought to recover the difference between the original contract and resale price.[7] Although the court recognized that the general measure of damages sometimes inadequately protects the benefit of the injured seller’s bargain,[8] the court failed to formulate an alternative measure to address the problem.
Continue readingDoes Scottsboro Still Matter? What Being Different, Poor, or Black Means for Victims and Defendants in a Post-Scottsboro American South.
This paper was originally written in January of 2020 for Professor Lawrence Raful’s course “The Scottsboro Boys: Racism and American Law” at Touro Law Center.
By Georgia D. Reid, Online Editor of the Touro Law Review
The Scottsboro case is one that changed the landscape of American jurisprudence forever. It is a case that highlights extreme divides between races, genders, and territories in America. While the events that led to the trials took place in 1931, there are still many pressing issues brought up in Scottsboro that remain important today, nearly a century after the fact. There is still a racial divide in the American justice system, as well as a class divide. And the unique history and culture of the American South creates an environment where this divide exists at its widest.
Continue reading
You must be logged in to post a comment.