The Experts below are selected from a list of 123 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Scharf, Rebecca L. - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Drone Invasion: Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and the Right to Privacy
    Scholarly Commons @ UNLV Law, 2019
    Co-Authors: Scharf, Rebecca L.
    Abstract:

    Since the birth of the concept of a legally-recognized right to privacy in Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis’ influential 1890 Law Review Article, The Right to Privacy, common Law – with the aid of influential scholars -- has massaged the concept of privacy torts into actionable claims. But now, one of the most innovative technological advancements in recent years, the unmanned aerial vehicle, or drone, has created difficult challenges for plaintiffs and courts navigating common Law privacy tort claims.This Article explores the challenges of prosecution of the specific privacy tort of intrusion into seclusion involving non-governmental use of drone technology. Specifically, it proposes that drone technology must be an added consideration when determining the two elements of the intrusion into seclusion privacy tort. The current common Law invasion of privacy tort analysis is not sufficient to protect an individual’s right to privacy for torts committed using the modern and complex technology of drones. Thus, considering drone technology must be weaved into analyzing whether the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy and whether the intrusion was highly offensive to a reasonable person.Further, this Article analyzes and evaluates the practical problems that arise in prosecuting intrusion upon seclusion claims in the drone-age, and how certain states’ statutes address or fail to address these issues. From determining the owner of the drone in order to name a defendant, to proving intent, it is almost impossible for a plaintiff to survive to establish a successful intrusion upon seclusion claim. Moreover, this Article suggests that statutes may combat many of the problems in prosecuting drone-related privacy tort claims by incorporating a rebuttable presumption that the defendant intruded upon the plaintiff’s seclusion once the plaintiff has alleged a prima facie case. This presumption is similar to the presumptions found in many state statutes regarding physical damage from torts committed with aircrafts against a person or property. Thus, because the defendant, a prudent drone owner, would be in the best position to disprove the intrusion, the defendant could rebut the claim by introducing such evidence as flight path data, photo of video footage, possession at the time of the alleged intrusion.With the constantly evolving technology and innovation in the age of drones, prosecuting William Prosser’s concept of the “right to be left alone” when an individual’s right to privacy comes with many challenges. Although other scholarship discusses the relationship between drones and privacy torts, this Article is novel in that it explores the practical issues of prosecuting intrusion upon seclusion claims in the age of drones. It further recommends considerations for courts and legislators when the right to privacy and drones collide

  • Drone Invasion: Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and the Right to Privacy
    Digital Repository @ Maurer Law, 2019
    Co-Authors: Scharf, Rebecca L.
    Abstract:

    Since the birth of the concept of a legally recognized right to privacy in Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis’ influential 1890 Law Review Article, “The Right to Privacy,” common Law—with the aid of influential scholars—has massaged the concept of privacy torts into actionable claims. But now, one of the most innovative technological advancements in recent years, the unmanned aerial vehicle, or drone, has created difficult challenges for plaintiffs and courts navigating common Law privacy tort claims. This Article explores the challenges of prosecution of the specific privacy tort of intrusion upon seclusion involving nongovernmental use of drone technology. Specifically, it proposes that drone technology must be an added consideration when determining the two elements of the intrusion upon seclusion privacy tort. The current common Law invasion of privacy tort analysis is not sufficient to protect an individual’s right to privacy for torts committed using the modern and complex technology of drones. Thus, consideration of drone technology must be weaved into analyzing whether the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy and whether the intrusion was highly offensive to a reasonable person. Further, this Article analyzes and evaluates the practical problems that arise in prosecuting intrusion upon seclusion claims in the drone-age, and how certain states’ statutes address or fail to address these issues. From determining the owner of the drone so as to name a defendant, to proving intent, it is almost impossible for a plaintiff to survive to establish a successful intrusion upon seclusion claim. Moreover, this Article suggests statutes may combat many of the problems in prosecuting drone-related privacy tort claims by incorporating a rebuttable presumption that the defendant intruded upon the plaintiff’s seclusion once the plaintiff has alleged a prima facie case. This presumption is like the presumptions found in many state statutes regarding physical damage from torts committed with aircrafts against a person or property. Thus, because the defendant, a prudent drone owner, would be in the best position to disprove the intrusion, the defendant could rebut the claim by introducing such evidence as flight path data, photo or video footage, or possession at the time of the alleged intrusion. With the constantly evolving technology and innovation in the age of drones, prosecuting William Prosser’s concept of the “right . . . ‘to be let alone’” when an individual’s right to privacy is violated comes with many challenges. Although other scholarship discusses the relationship between drones and privacy torts, this Article is novel in that it explores the practical issues of prosecuting intrusion upon seclusion claims in the age of drones. It further recommends considerations for courts and legislators when the right to privacy and drones collide

Dylan J Steinberg - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • the Law Review Article selection process results from a national study
    Albany law review, 2008
    Co-Authors: Jason P Nance, Dylan J Steinberg
    Abstract:

    I. INTRODUCTION In the mid-1990s, the topic of the student-edited Law Review was very much on the minds of legal scholars and Law Review editors. In 1994, the University of Chicago Law Review published a series of essays addressing the role of students in the Law Review publication process. (1) The following year, the Stanford Law Review conducted a Law Review conference entitled "Law Review Conference." (2) Although there were many calls for further research into the functioning of the Law Review, (3) few, if any, studies were undertaken or published as a result. (4) After nearly a decade of relative dormancy, the topic appears to be active again. In December 2004, the Harvard Law Review conducted a survey of nearly 800 Law school faculty, almost ninety percent of whom agreed that Articles were, in general, too long. (5) Judge Posner, the keynote speaker at the Stanford conference, has returned to the fray, removing his action from the pages of the Law Reviews themselves to the more generally-circulated Legal Affairs. (6) And once again, student editors have felt the need to defend themselves against the onslaught of criticism. (7) But still there has been little serious study of this important but widely-criticized institution. Though critics complain about the process, their understanding of how legal journals decide what to publish is generally limited to their own experiences, either as editors when they were in Law school or as authors. It was against this backdrop that we designed our survey and circulated it to the editors at about 400 (8) student-edited Law Reviews (9) asking a set of questions designed to peel back the curtain that has shrouded the Article selection process. We received 191 responses from 163 different journals. (10) Though, as might be expected from an exploratory survey, the results raise at least as many questions as they answer, we hope that the introduction of significant empirical data into the debate can refocus the conversation about how best to structure the changing world of legal scholarship. Our Article proceeds in four parts. Part II places our survey in its proper context by Reviewing some of the criticisms of the student-edited Law Review, particularly with regard to Article selection, that have been raised in the published literature. Part III provides an overview of our methodology, both for the survey itself and for our statistical analysis. Part IV Reviews the quantitative results of our analysis and examines what they tell us about the selection process. Part V briefly summarizes the findings we consider to be most salient and discusses their implications. II. THE CRITICISMS OF THE STUDENT-EDITED Law Review The subject of the student-edited Law Review has generated far more than its share of published invective. While scholars' discontent with the institution is unsurprising given its importance to the progress of their careers (no doubt there is much grumbling behind closed doors about the activities of tenure and promotion committees as well), it is unusual that so much of the grumbling about Law Reviews takes place in public and is printed by the Law Reviews themselves. A few examples will serve to highlight the level of disdain that the institution of the student-edited Law Review receives from its detractors: * Professor James Lindgren opens his essay on the subject with a section entitled "Crimes Against Humanity" that begins "[o]ur scholarly journals are in the hands of incompetents"; (11) * Professor Bernard Hibbitts complains that "the concept of Law students exercising quality control over legal scholarship borders on the oxymoronic"; (12) and * Judge Richard Posner finds that "what is wrong is the Law Reviews' failure, and perhaps inability, to adapt to the changing nature of American Law and American legal scholarship." (13) Although the most vitriolic of the criticism has been directed at the line-editing process and the perceived atrocities of the Law Review style, (14) it is in the Article selection process that student editors wield the greatest power over scholars. …

  • the Law Review Article selection process results from a national study
    Social Science Research Network, 2007
    Co-Authors: Jason P Nance, Dylan J Steinberg
    Abstract:

    The student-edited Law Review has been a much criticized institution. Many commentators have expressed their belief that students are unqualified to determine which Articles should be published in which journals, but these discussions have been largely based on anecdotal evidence of how journals make publication decisions. It was against that backdrop that we undertook a national survey of Law Reviews in an attempt to determine how student editors responsible for making publication decisions went about their task. This Article compiles the results of that survey, which received 191 responses from 163 different journals. We analyzed 56 factors that influence the selection process and then grouped similar items together to form 17 constructs using factor analysis. Finally, we disaggregated the results to determine whether the results were significantly different based on the prestige of the journals involved. While many of our results confirm what has been widely assumed to be true, there are also some surprising findings. We found, for example, that Articles Editors seek to publish Articles from well-known and widely-respected authors. It appears, however, that editors do not assume that prestigious authors produce the best scholarship, but instead they pursue the work of well-known authors because it can increase their journals' prestige within the legal academic community. The survey reveals that editors are not nearly as likely to seek out Articles dealing with hot or trendy topics as some commentators have assumed, and that author diversity plays almost no role in the Article selection process. We hope that our study will provide some structure to the ongoing debate about how best to use students in the Law Review publication process and will allow a more informed consideration of whether students are sufficiently well-trained to evaluate Articles and whether they are using the proper criteria.

George A Hay - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • areeda turner down under predatory pricing in australia before and after boral
    Review of Industrial Organization, 2015
    Co-Authors: Deirdre L Hay, George A Hay
    Abstract:

    In the only predatory pricing case in Australia to reach the High Court, the ideas and recommendations contained in the 1975 Harvard Law Review Article by Phillip Areeda and Donald Turner were at the heart of the case. That case, the Boral case, decided by the High Court in 2003, raised a number of interesting issues with regard to whether and how the test that was proposed by Areeda and Turner should be employed to deal with price cuts by large firms that are aimed at competitors. Equally important, the case raised some fundamental questions about whether there was a serious “gap” in the Australian equivalent of Section 2 of the Sherman Act—Section 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, formerly the Trade Practices Act 1974 (TPA)—which made it difficult to challenge predatory conduct. Boral led immediately to some radical changes in the TPA; but, even today, more than 10 years after Boral, Australians are still struggling to develop the right statutory framework to deal with predatory pricing. This paper will describe the Boral case, discuss how the Australian courts, including the High Court, attempted to apply the A–T test to the facts of the case, and survey and comment on the ongoing legislative turmoil that followed from High Court’s decision.

  • areeda turner down under predatory pricing in australia before and after boral
    2015
    Co-Authors: Deirdre L Hay, George A Hay
    Abstract:

    In the only predatory pricing case in Australia to reach the High Court, the ideas and recommendations contained in the 1975 Harvard Law Review Article by Phillip Areeda and Donald Turner were at the heart of the case. That case, the Boral case, decided by the High Court in 2003, raised a number of interesting issues regarding whether and how the test proposed by Areeda and Turner should be employed to deal with price cuts by large firms aimed at competitors. Equally importantly, the case raised some fundamental questions about whether there was a serious “gap” in the Australian equivalent of Section 2 of the Sherman Act - Section 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, formerly the Trade Practices Act 1974 (TPA) - which made it difficult to challenge predatory conduct. Boral led immediately to some radical changes in the TPA but, even today, more than 10 years after Boral, Australians are still struggling to come up with the right statutory framework to deal with predatory pricing. This paper will describe the Boral case, discuss how the Australian courts, including the High Court, attempted to apply the A-T test to the facts of the case, and survey and comment on the ongoing legislative turmoil brought about by High Court’s decision.

Julie A Oseid - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • navigating the Law Review Article selection process an empirical study of those with all the power student editors
    Social Science Research Network, 2007
    Co-Authors: Leah M Christensen, Julie A Oseid
    Abstract:

    Anyone who enters the legal academy knows the pressure for new Law professors to publish or perish. The use of student editors as the "gatekeepers" of legal scholarship is a distinctive feature of the legal academy. Yet, even with student editors holding the keys to academic success, few empirical studies have explored what factors student editors consider most important when making Article selection decisions. The study reported in this Article attempts to shed light on this process and provide suggestions for new Law professors as they navigate the Law Review Article submission process. The present study examines how Law Review editors at all levels of the Law school "tier" system (e.g., Top 15, Top 25, Top 50, Top 100, Third Tier, Fourth Tier and Specialty Journals) weigh the importance of author credentials, topic, format, and timing of an Article submission in making their selection decisions. Although most editors consider each of these factors, the data also suggests that the higher-ranked journals rely more heavily on author credentials than lower-ranked journals. Editors at higher-tiered Law schools were highly influenced by where an author has previously published. Further, while not a single editor at a Top 15 school considered an author's practice experience in making a publication decision, a majority of the editors at lower-tiered journals rated practice experience as an important factor in Article selection. In addition, the study participants almost unanimously agreed that they were influenced by the topic of an Article yet there were important differences among the Law schools concerning the actual topics about which they would be most or least likely to publish. In addition to describing the survey results in more detail, this Article will offer specific commentary from the student editors about their process of selecting Law Review Articles.

Pierre Schlag - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • the Law Review Article
    Social Science Research Network, 2016
    Co-Authors: Pierre Schlag
    Abstract:

    This very brief Article explores the genre of the Law Review Article — its characteristic demands and limitations as an artifactual form. The idea is to perform within each section of the Article precisely what that section is characteristically supposed to accomplish. The point of “performing” this function (rather than merely describing or analyzing it) lies in getting the reader-author to recognize experientially what the genre qua artifactual form does to him or her — independently of the so-called “substance” of the piece. For good or ill, the Law Review Article as a genre is a particular organization of mind — most topically, yours, mine, etc. It is worth thinking about precisely because so much of the substance of conventional legal scholarship has to be understood not just as a response to its ostensible object (i.e., Law) but also as an outgrowth of the stylized aesthetic conditions of its articulation — to wit, the genre of the Law Review Article. The following then is offered as both a guide and a cautionary impetus to junior scholars in the hopes that they do not simply re-enact the genre, but question and struggle with its possibilities and limitations. The essay is also suitable for associate deans for research.

  • the Law Review Article
    forthcoming, 2016
    Co-Authors: Pierre Schlag
    Abstract:

    This very short piece describes the form, structure and vexations of the Law Review Article qua scholarly artifact. It also contains Professor Max Stein’s latest thoughts as articulated in Schlag’s recently published book, “American Absurd”. INTRODUCTION The most important thing at the beginning of a Law Review Article is to excite the reader’s imagination, to evoke the hope that what comes next is truly gripping. A page-turner. Something totally out of the ordinary. Perhaps not even a Law Review Article at all. Once this moment is reached, it must be brought gradually but firmly to an end—perhaps with the aid of a long elliptical sentence (punctuated by parentheticals) that leaves the reader stunned—wondering what has just happened as he tries to regain his wits.