<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Rutgers Law Record</title>
	<atom:link href="http://lawrecord.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://lawrecord.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 May 2012 00:31:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>An Analysis of the Constitutionality of Arizona&#8217;s Ethic Studies Law</title>
		<link>http://lawrecord.com/2012/05/09/an-analysis-of-the-constitutionality-of-arizonas-ethic-studies-law/</link>
		<comments>http://lawrecord.com/2012/05/09/an-analysis-of-the-constitutionality-of-arizonas-ethic-studies-law/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 May 2012 00:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Preston C. Green III and David Brown and Sara Ney</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Issues]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arizona]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Education]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ethnic studies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hispanic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[k-12]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mexican american]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[racial]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawrecord.com/?p=751</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On May 2011, the Arizona legislature passed a law that has placed significant restrictions on K-12 ethnic studies programs. The law prohibits any public school district or charter school from conducting classes that, inter alia, are designed primarily for a &#8230; <a class="more-link" href="http://lawrecord.com/2012/05/09/an-analysis-of-the-constitutionality-of-arizonas-ethic-studies-law/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawrecord.com/2012/05/09/an-analysis-of-the-constitutionality-of-arizonas-ethic-studies-law/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Employer Not Vicariously Liable for Employee’s Assault, Says the New Jersey Supreme Court</title>
		<link>http://lawrecord.com/2012/04/20/employer-not-vicariously-liable-for-employees-assault-says-the-new-jersey-supreme-court/</link>
		<comments>http://lawrecord.com/2012/04/20/employer-not-vicariously-liable-for-employees-assault-says-the-new-jersey-supreme-court/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Apr 2012 02:43:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Daniel L. Saperstein and Carolyn M. Dellatore</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Current Events]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Issues]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[assault]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[foreseeability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New Jersey]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[non-delegable duty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[respondeat superior]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scope of employment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[torts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[vicarious liability]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawrecord.com/?p=728</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In Davis v. Devereux Foundation, — A.3d —, 2012 WL 638002 (N.J. Feb. 29, 2012), the Supreme Court of New Jersey declined to hold liable Defendant Devereux Foundation – a national non-profit foundation providing services for persons with emotional, developmental &#8230; <a class="more-link" href="http://lawrecord.com/2012/04/20/employer-not-vicariously-liable-for-employees-assault-says-the-new-jersey-supreme-court/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawrecord.com/2012/04/20/employer-not-vicariously-liable-for-employees-assault-says-the-new-jersey-supreme-court/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Right to Confront Witnesses, but not Necessarily at Trial: Predicting a Judge-focused Remedy in Williams v. Illinois</title>
		<link>http://lawrecord.com/2012/03/23/the-right-to-confront-witnesses-but-not-necessarily-at-trial-predicting-a-judge-focused-remedy-in-williams-v-illinois/</link>
		<comments>http://lawrecord.com/2012/03/23/the-right-to-confront-witnesses-but-not-necessarily-at-trial-predicting-a-judge-focused-remedy-in-williams-v-illinois/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 Mar 2012 01:41:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Scott A. Anderson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Issues]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[confrontation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[criminal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wintnesses]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawrecord.com/?p=724</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a recent New York Times op-ed piece, Stanford Law Professor Jeffrey Fisher predicted the outcome of Williams v. Illinois, a case pending in the Supreme Court of the United States. Professor Fisher has argued that “a logical application of &#8230; <a class="more-link" href="http://lawrecord.com/2012/03/23/the-right-to-confront-witnesses-but-not-necessarily-at-trial-predicting-a-judge-focused-remedy-in-williams-v-illinois/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawrecord.com/2012/03/23/the-right-to-confront-witnesses-but-not-necessarily-at-trial-predicting-a-judge-focused-remedy-in-williams-v-illinois/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No Expertise Required: How Washington D.C. Has Erred in Expanding Its Expert Testimony Requirement</title>
		<link>http://lawrecord.com/2012/03/23/no-expertise-required-how-washington-d-c-has-erred-in-expanding-its-expert-testimony-requirement/</link>
		<comments>http://lawrecord.com/2012/03/23/no-expertise-required-how-washington-d-c-has-erred-in-expanding-its-expert-testimony-requirement/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Mar 2012 17:13:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Colin Miller</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Issues]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[err]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[expert]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[testimony]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Washington D.C.]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawrecord.com/?p=717</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In 2005, Marlin Godfrey brought a diversity action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against Allen Iverson and his bodyguard, Jason Kane, stemming from a brawl at Eyebar, a Washington, D.C. nightclub. Godfrey alleged that &#8230; <a class="more-link" href="http://lawrecord.com/2012/03/23/no-expertise-required-how-washington-d-c-has-erred-in-expanding-its-expert-testimony-requirement/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawrecord.com/2012/03/23/no-expertise-required-how-washington-d-c-has-erred-in-expanding-its-expert-testimony-requirement/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Padilla v. Kentucky&#8216;s Inapplicability to Undocumented and Non-Immigrant Visitors</title>
		<link>http://lawrecord.com/2012/03/14/padilla-v-kentuckys-inapplicability-to-undocumented-and-non-immigrant-visitors/</link>
		<comments>http://lawrecord.com/2012/03/14/padilla-v-kentuckys-inapplicability-to-undocumented-and-non-immigrant-visitors/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2012 19:37:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Cesar Cuauhtemoc Garcia Hernandez</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Issues]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[collateral consequences]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[criminal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[criminal law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[crimmigration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Immigration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lawful permanent resident]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sixth amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[undocumented]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawrecord.com/?p=710</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Supreme Court’s recognition in Padilla v. Kentucky that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel requires criminal defense attorneys to advise noncitizen defendants of the possibility of deportation prior to pleading guilty promises to lift the veil of misinformation from &#8230; <a class="more-link" href="http://lawrecord.com/2012/03/14/padilla-v-kentuckys-inapplicability-to-undocumented-and-non-immigrant-visitors/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawrecord.com/2012/03/14/padilla-v-kentuckys-inapplicability-to-undocumented-and-non-immigrant-visitors/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Special Relationship Bystander Test: A Rational Alternative to the Closely Related Requirement of Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress for Bystanders</title>
		<link>http://lawrecord.com/2012/01/26/special-relationship-bystander-test-a-rational-alternative-to-the-closely-related-requirement-of-negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress-for-bystanders/</link>
		<comments>http://lawrecord.com/2012/01/26/special-relationship-bystander-test-a-rational-alternative-to-the-closely-related-requirement-of-negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress-for-bystanders/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jan 2012 21:10:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Colin E. Flora</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Issues]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bystander]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[damages]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[negligent infliction of emotional distress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nied]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[torts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawrecord.com/?p=703</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An engaged couple was crossing Washington Street in downtown Indianapolis, Indiana, en route to the county clerk’s office to apply for a marriage license. The bride-to-be noticed a tractor-trailer bearing down on her and her fiancé. Realizing that the truck &#8230; <a class="more-link" href="http://lawrecord.com/2012/01/26/special-relationship-bystander-test-a-rational-alternative-to-the-closely-related-requirement-of-negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress-for-bystanders/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawrecord.com/2012/01/26/special-relationship-bystander-test-a-rational-alternative-to-the-closely-related-requirement-of-negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress-for-bystanders/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ready, Aim, Fire: Employing Open Records Acts As Another Weapon Against Public Law School Clinics</title>
		<link>http://lawrecord.com/2012/01/19/ready-aim-fire-employing-open-records-acts-as-another-weapon-against-public-law-school-clinics/</link>
		<comments>http://lawrecord.com/2012/01/19/ready-aim-fire-employing-open-records-acts-as-another-weapon-against-public-law-school-clinics/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2012 15:32:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jennifer Dearborn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Issues]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[clinic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Education]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law school]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[open records]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawrecord.com/?p=698</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[“Information is the oxygen of democracy.” Indeed, transparency in government is the essence of any democratic system &#8211; without it, corruption is free to thrive in secrecy. Therefore, it is essential to provide the citizenry with freedom of information as &#8230; <a class="more-link" href="http://lawrecord.com/2012/01/19/ready-aim-fire-employing-open-records-acts-as-another-weapon-against-public-law-school-clinics/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawrecord.com/2012/01/19/ready-aim-fire-employing-open-records-acts-as-another-weapon-against-public-law-school-clinics/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Registration Open for Fall Symposium 2011 &#8211; No Child Left Behind, Ten Years Later</title>
		<link>http://lawrecord.com/2011/10/29/registration-open-for-fall-symposium-2011-no-child-left-behind-ten-years-later/</link>
		<comments>http://lawrecord.com/2011/10/29/registration-open-for-fall-symposium-2011-no-child-left-behind-ten-years-later/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Oct 2011 23:26:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Announcements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Issues]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Education]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[education law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[No Child Left Behind Act]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawrecord.com/?p=675</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Registration for the Fall 2011 Symposium is open. On November 10th, 2011, from 6:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., The Rutgers Law Record, BarBri and The Rutgers Institute for Professional Education will host a symposium on the No Child Left Behind &#8230; <a class="more-link" href="http://lawrecord.com/2011/10/29/registration-open-for-fall-symposium-2011-no-child-left-behind-ten-years-later/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawrecord.com/2011/10/29/registration-open-for-fall-symposium-2011-no-child-left-behind-ten-years-later/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Getting to the Core: Rewriting the No Child Left Behind Act for the 21st Century</title>
		<link>http://lawrecord.com/2011/08/31/getting-to-the-core-rewriting-the-no-child-left-behind-act-for-the-21st-century/</link>
		<comments>http://lawrecord.com/2011/08/31/getting-to-the-core-rewriting-the-no-child-left-behind-act-for-the-21st-century/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Aug 2011 14:04:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Diana Pullin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Issues]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Adequate Yearly Progress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Education]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Education reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Elementary and Secondary Education Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[No Child Left Behind Act]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawrecord.com/?p=648</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Any consideration of the next generation of law-based education reform must address the dual goals of insuring public accountability for all schools to educate all students, as well as insuring every child’s individual opportunity to learn meaningful content. The impending &#8230; <a class="more-link" href="http://lawrecord.com/2011/08/31/getting-to-the-core-rewriting-the-no-child-left-behind-act-for-the-21st-century/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawrecord.com/2011/08/31/getting-to-the-core-rewriting-the-no-child-left-behind-act-for-the-21st-century/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Case of Casey Anthony: Defending the American Jury System</title>
		<link>http://lawrecord.com/2011/08/11/the-case-of-casey-anthony-defending-the-american-jury-system/</link>
		<comments>http://lawrecord.com/2011/08/11/the-case-of-casey-anthony-defending-the-american-jury-system/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Aug 2011 19:50:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jennifer Dearborn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Current Events]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Issues]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Casey Anthony]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Caylee Anthony]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CSI effect]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[guilt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[innocence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Murder]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reasonable doubt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trial]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawrecord.com/?p=614</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On July 5, 2011, after only eleven hours of deliberation and no request to review evidence, a twelve-person jury found twenty-five year old Casey Anthony not guilty of murdering her two year old daughter, Caylee.1 The two-year old had been &#8230; <a class="more-link" href="http://lawrecord.com/2011/08/11/the-case-of-casey-anthony-defending-the-american-jury-system/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawrecord.com/2011/08/11/the-case-of-casey-anthony-defending-the-american-jury-system/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

