Articles
| VOLUME
26 |
Fall 1996
|
NUMBER
1 |
|
Intentionally Impermanent Employment and the Paradox of Productivity
|
Eileen Silverstein, Peter Goselin |
| Professor Eileen Silverstein and Mr. Peter Goselin describe the drastic changes occurring within the workforce composition and propose a solution that will benefit employees, the employers, and society. The authors describe the recent surge of the contingent workforce, its impact on businesses, and the failure of the employers and the legislature to keep pace with this trend. Furthermore, the authors assert that this trend will continue since contingent employment fills an important need in the workplace. Professor Silverstein and Mr. Goselin propose that unions and professional organizations act as employment agencies for contingent workers by providing them with benefits, protection, and training as well as providing the employers with a flexible and skilled pool of workers. |
|
|
|
An Un-Uniform System of Citation: Surviving with the New Bluebook (Including Compendia of State and Federal Court Rules Concerning Citation Form)
|
A. Darby Dickerson |
| Professor Darby Dickerson's Article, an Un-Uniform System of Citation, is the most comprehensive study in the history of the most-referenced guide to legal citation - The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation. This Article traces the Bluebook's history from its humble beginnings as a guide for the Harvard Law Review editors to its controversial dominance as the leading authority on legal citation. Professor Dickerson outlines the changes - good and bad - that Bluebook editors have imposed over the years. Every legal writer recognizes the uncertainty surrounding a new Bluebook edition. However, this Article eases the transition by providing a ready reference guide for practitioners and academic writers alike. Appendix A contains a comprehensive list of changes between the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Editions. Practitioners will also find the compilation of court rules from around the nation especially useful. |
|
|
|
An Erie Decision: Should State Statutes Prohibiting the Pleading of Punitive Damage Claims Be Applied in Federal Diversity Actions?
|
Rhett Traband |
| This Article discusses the applicability of state statutes governing the pleading of punitive damages in federal diversity actions. Mr. Traband opens with an analysis of the similarities and differences between the several state statutes that govern the pleading of punitive damages. The author then evaluates the effect of the Erie Doctrine on the conflicting lines of cases which have interpreted whether these state statutes are procedural or substantive by nature and the applicability of these statutes in federal diversity actions. Mr. Traband concludes by offering a solution to the present conflict amongst the federal district courts: these state statutes are substantive and must be applied in federal diversity actions. |
|
|
|
Choice-of-Law and Property
|
Michael S. Finch |
| This Article discusses the choice-of-law issues that occur in the area of property. Professor Finch focuses on Florida's decisional law, and the methods used by courts to settle choice-of-law conflicts that arise. The discussion of the conflicts doctrine is separated into three categories within property law: (1) situs rules, (2) marital property, and (3) property succession. Within the situs rules category, Professor Finch addresses the conflicts that occur with real and personal property issues. The marital property section considers the implications of marriage, and more specifically, the conflicts that arise in divorce or death proceedings. In addition, this section recognizes conflicts that may occur with nuptial agreements. Lastly, property succession is addressed. Professor Finch acknowledges that the Uniform Probate Code has reduced the number of conflicts but still recognizes issues that persist both in testate and intestate succession. |
|
|
|
Florida's Anti-Suicide Presumption: An Evidentiary Chameleon
|
John E. Fennelly |
| Judge Fennelly focuses this Article on the presumption against suicide which exists within Florida evidence law. Judge Fennelly reviews the origin of the presumption as it was developed and modified by the Florida Supreme Court. He discusses the various types of presumptions available under the Florida Evidence Code and considers as well the relationship of the presumption to contract law principles regarding contractual shifting of the burden of proof of the occurrence of an event. He considers the treatment that the Florida Supreme Court gave the presumption of undue influence in the case In re Estate of Carpenter, and he advocates that the presumption against suicide by treated the same way. |
|
|
|
On the Threshold of a New World: Commencement Day, May 1996
|
James E. Goodby |
| In this commencement speech, Ambassador Goodby discusses the exciting political era that we are entering and offers an optimistic vision for the future. The fall of the Soviet Union and the rise of technology and the global economy signify a great turning point in history that will necessitate increased diplomatic cooperation. Ambassador Goodby believes that the United States is in a unique position to shape history by promoting democratic ideals throughout the world. Ambassador Goodby then notes the special responsibility of people trained in the law and challenges the recent Stetson graduates to ensure that these democratic ideals continue. |
|
|
|
Securities Arbitration: The Six-Year Eligibility Rule
|
Pamela Jeanne Turbow Rush |
| In this Comment, Ms. Rush examines the history of the Six-Year Eligibility Rule for securities arbitration and the conflicting application of the rule by federal circuits. The Comment discusses the two doctrines of application and the current efforts of the securities industry to significantly modify the rule to resolve the conflict. The Comment also comments on recent development by courts of a fraudulent concealment concept to extend the arbitration period without the courts explaining how to handle damage calculations for such a claim. Ms. Rush concludes by recommending that the circuits leave to the arbitration for the construction of the rule while recognizing that the self-regulating organizations need to consider public confidence in alternative dispute resolution or risk government intervention. |
|
|
|
Dodging Double Jeopardy: Combined Civil and Criminal Trials
|
Luis Garcia-Rivera |
| In this Comment, Mr. Garcia-Rivera explores the interrelationship between the Florida False Claims Act and double jeopardy. The Comment examines the repercussions of United States v. Halper, where the Supreme Court held that a successive civil prosecution punitive in nature is barred by double jeopardy, and the different ways courts have tried to get around this bar. The discussion centers on the "coordinated prosecutions" test, an artificially contrived legal theory created by courts to try to sidestep double jeopardy by holding a criminal prosecution and a successive punitive civil prosecution as a "single, coordinated prosecution." The Comment maintains that this theory is dead, and the government must find a different way to bring both a criminal and a punitive civil prosecution and still avoid double jeopardy. Mr. Garcia-Rivera suggests that the government bring both civil and criminal cases in one combined proceeding. Though inconvenienced by procedural obstacles, Mr. Garcia-Rivera argues that this approach is both feasible and the only way for the government to dodge double jeopardy. |
|
|
|
Florida's Statutory Rape Law: A Shield or a Weapon? - A Minor's Right of Privacy Under Florida Statutes § 794.05
|
Anthony M. Amelio |
| In this Note, Mr. Amelio examines the relationship between Florida's statutory rape laws and Florida's privacy amendment. Specifically, Mr. Amelio analyzes B.B. v. State, where the Florida Supreme Court held that a Florida statutory rape law was unconstitutional as it applied to minors. Mr. Amelio criticizes this controversial decision for its unwarranted expansion of privacy rights in contrast to Florida precedent. Mr. Amelio then recommends that the Florida Legislature either repeal or amend Florida's statutory rape statutes before the repercussions of the B.B. decision are realized. |
|
|
|
The Florida Bar Went For It, But It Went Too Far: How Limiting Targeted, Direct-Mail Solicitation of Clients Harms the Reputation of Attorneys More than It Helps
|
Douglas W. Swalina |
| Mr. Swalina's Note critically analyzes the United States Supreme Court's decision in Florida Bar v. Went for It, Inc., where the Supreme Court upheld the Florida Bar Rule which prohibits personal injury attorneys from contacting accident victims and their families within thirty days of the injury causing accident. The Note concludes that the Florida Bar's interest in protecting the failing reputations of Florida attorneys is ill-served by restricting attorneys from offering their services to accident victims who may not be aware of their legal rights, who may not recognize the value of their potential claim, and who are not protected by similar restrictions on solicitation from the insurance and legal representatives of the party who caused the injury. Additionally, by restricting this discreet form of private communication between the attorney and the victim, the Florida Bar is essentially forcing attorneys who specialize in personal injury representation to advertise in mass-media to attract those potential clients lost to the Florida Bar Rules. And the mass-media images which touch virtually every citizen's life have the potential to do far greater damage to the general reputation of Florida attorneys than do individual letters personally addressed to the victim and his family. |
|
|
Stetson Law Review • 1401 61st Street South • Gulfport, Florida 33707
phone: (727) 562-7800 ext. 7955 • fax: (727) 347-4873 • lrmarked@law.stetson.edu
|
Gulfport, Florida 33707-3299