Library Dedication
| VOLUME
28 |
Fall 1998
|
NUMBER
2 |
|
A Response to the Civility Naysayers
|
Hon. Marvin E. Aspen |
| Civility in the law ? or at least talk of it ? is sweeping the nation. In this Article, Chief Judge Aspen describes the civility code he helped develop for the Seventh Circuit and pits that code against two common fears: (1) civility codes encroach on zealous representation; and (2) they spawn collateral litigation. Through a review of judicial and administrative opinions, Judge Aspen demonstrates that both criticisms are unwarranted and that, if anything, the Seventh Circuit's civility code has turned them on their heads, allowing judges to chide attorneys who go beyond zealousness and to avoid satellite sanctions litigation. |
|
|
|
Ethics on the Web: An Annotated Bibliography of Legal Ethics Material on the Internet
|
A. Darby Dickerson |
| The Internet is becoming an increasingly important resource for legal research. In this Article, Professor A. Darby Dickerson compiles many Web site locations that include legal ethics material into a practical reference guide that will enable scholars and practitioners to locate research material quickly. Additionally, Professor Dickerson describes the contents of each Web site and provides a detailed Appendix listing the available ethics Web sites for each state |
|
|
|
The 1851 Shipowners' Limitation of Liability Act: A Recent State Court Trend to Exercise Jurisdiction over Limitation Rights
|
Christopher S. Morin |
| This Comment analyzes the 1851 Shipowners' Limitation of Liability Act and a recent trend in State courts to exercise jurisdiction over limitation rights. After examining the Act's origin and jurisprudential history, the Author identifies the jurisdictional dilemma between federal and state court jurisdiction under the Limitation Act. The Author then reveals and critically analyzes the trend started by Mapco Petroleum v. Memphis Barge Line, Inc, and Howell v. American Casualty Co., which uniformly held that state courts have jurisdiction over limitation rights asserted as an affirmative defense. Next, the Author uses hypotheticals to illustrate the procedural and practical significance of these two decisions. Finally, the Author closes by noting that in light of this trend, state courts today should recognize a vessel owner's right to assert limited liability consistent with the decisions rendered in Mapco and Howell. |
|
|
|
The Shareholder Proposal Rule: Cracker Barrel, Institutional Investors, and the 1998 Amendments
|
Maya Mueller |
| This Comment analyzes the Shareholder Proposal Rule, the recent 1998 Amendments to this rule, and the SEC's controversial Cracker Barrel decision. The Author provides a background on the Shareholder Proposal Rule by discussing its history and amendments. The Author also provides an overview of the reasons for and against the Rule and the importance of employment related decisions to enable the reader to better appreciate both the Cracker Barrel decision and the 1998 Amendments. The Cracker Barrel decision and the subsequent district and appellate cases are fully discussed to allow the reader to fully grasp the import of the SEC's recent decision to reverse Cracker Barrel. This Comment also touches upon the institutional investor activism and issues hindering its success. Finally, the Author closes with a discussion of the 1998 Amendments applauding the SEC's reversal of its Cracker Barrel decision and noting that what the SEC chose not to adopt is far more significant than what it did adopt |
|
|
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