For those who have occasion to practice in or to observe the Courts in other states, it has, until recently, been impossible to conclude other than that the New Jersey Courts, whatever flaws may exist, are among the best in the nation. Similarly, the New Jersey Supreme Court has been regarded as one of the best of the states’ highest Courts in the nation.1 Continue reading
The Rutgers Law Record would like to thank all our speakers and attendees who attended our 2011 Symposium – Redefining Borders: Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the United States. The event was a big success.
The Rutgers Law Record and the Rutgers Immigrant Rights Collective are proud to announce the current lineup of speakers for upcoming symposium, Redefining Borders: Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the United States. The event will take place on March 4th at Rutgers School of Law – Newark. Admission is FREE, breakfast will be served at 8:30 and lunch will be provided. Continue reading
Registration for the 2011 Symposium is open. On March 4th, 2011, The Rutgers Law Record and The Immigrant Rights Collective will host a day long symposium on comprehensive immigration reform. Professors and practitioners will congregate at Rutgers School of Law – Newark to discuss the various issues that are raised by the current immigration system in the United States. The day will be broken up into four separate panels that will focus on Business and Employment Immigration, Family Immigration, Detention and Enforcement, and Asylum. Each panel will have multiple speakers who will be speaking on specific issues that have been raised in that area of immigration law and potential solutions to these problems. Admission to the event is free and lunch will be served. For more information, e-mail The Rutgers Law Record at email@example.com. Continue reading
38 Rutgers L. Rec. 141 (2011) | WestLaw | LexisNexis | PDF
The federal courts are unevenly divided in their treatment of the initial constitutional challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (“Affordable Care Act”). Two district judges have ruled that the individual mandate provision of the law exceeds Congress’s constitutional authority and one has struck down the law in its entirety. Many more district judges have used the Twombly and Iqbal-emboldened Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to turn away similar challenges across the country. Although the question is years from final resolution, it appears that the 111th Congress internalized U.S. Supreme Court decisions limiting its power under the Commerce Clause, anticipating constitutional challenges to the individual mandate to purchase health insurance, Medicaid expansion and insurance exchange regimes and structuring the law to survive those challenges.
38 Rutgers L. Rec. 18 (2011) | WestLaw | LexisNexis | PDF
The Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Arts (PHOSITA) is a critical standard in determining whether an invention satisfies the “obviousness” and “inventive step” requirements of the U.S. and Taiwan respectively. The concept of the PHOSITA first originated from the 1850 Supreme Court ruling in Hotchkiss v. Greenwood and later was codified into the U.S. Patent Act of 1952. Often a recipient of U.S. patent jurisprudence, Taiwan has incorporated the PHOSITA concept in its 1979 Patent Act amendment. However, in practice, the application of the PHOSITA has been largely ignored in both the U.S. and Taiwan. Not only was the PHOSITA concept largely ignored in Taiwan, in practice the satisfaction of the “inventive step” requirement could be obtained simply on a showing of “unexpected efficacy.” In this regard, Taiwan has relied on the Taiwan Intellectual Property Office (TIPO) Invention Patent Examination Guideline (2009) to support the abdication of the “inventive step” requirement.
In March 2010, the Transportation Security Administration (‘TSA’) began rolling out its Advanced Imaging Technology (‘AIT’). The AIT, also known as the Full Body Scanner, penetrates clothing with a burst of radiation which provides an image of the passenger’s naked body along with any guns, weapons or items secreted on the passenger. The TSA stated the new scanning devices were to “ensure travel remains safe and secure.” In late 2010, the TSA announced it was implementing new pat-down procedures. These new ”enhanced” pat-downs were put in place in order to “keep the traveling public safe.” The AIT and enhanced pat-downs permit what some have described as a sexual assault on today’s airline passenger. When a passenger is selected for enhanced screening, they have two choices: be viewed naked or be groped. Continue reading
38 Rutgers L. Rec. 133 (2011) | WestLaw | LexisNexis | PDF
Although precedent suggests that New Jersey’s appellate judges must be cautious when encroaching into areas best left to the expertise of the family court, there are often times on appeal when a sufficient factual record exists for the Appellate Division to decide any lingering questions without the need for a further remand. The objective of this article is to show that by invoking its original jurisdiction authority, the Appellate Division can reduce the time and resources spent on family-related litigation. Indeed, the appellate court should not hesitate to invoke original jurisdiction when deciding contentious family matters that have been the subject of prolonged litigation. Part I of this article discusses the financial and emotional burden that litigation places on families, while Part II addresses the basis of the Appellate Division’s original jurisdiction authority and the benefits of its use. Part III analyzes recent family cases where the Appellate Division used its original jurisdiction power, providing practitioners with concrete examples of when the authority can be properly invoked to bring about a timely end to litigation. Finally, Part IV assesses how to prevent the appellate court from overreaching into areas best left to the Family Part.
38 Rutgers L. Rec. 74 (2011) | WestLaw | LexisNexis | PDF
Cocaine sentencing policy has been the source of vociferous debate for more than twenty
years. Under the traditional sentencing scheme, criminal defendants convicted of crack cocaine offenses (who were usually black) were disproportionately sentenced to longer prison terms than defendants convicted of powder cocaine offenses (who were usually not). Despite decades of criticisms toward this disparity, Congress did not change the sentencing law until August 2010. On the other hand, the United States Sentencing Commission was an unlikely hero that affirmatively acted to reduce the disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentences. That role is largely underappreciated. Based on the Commission’s 2007 retroactive amendment that reduced the sentencing guideline ranges for crack convictions, Congress should recognize the value of the Commission and grant it additional power.
As part of our ongoing process to increase discussion and encourage debate on legal issues that effect our society, the Rutgers Law Record is proud to present the Rutgers Law Record Blog. This space is open to professors, practitioners, and students to share their thoughts about ongoing legal topics. While this space is moderated to maintain the quality and decorum of the discussion, it is open to anyone who wishes to contribute, react to, or comment on these important topics.
Our goal is to use the internet to provide timely and thoughtful analysis of legal issues in our society. We also believe that meaningful discussion, analysis and commentary can occur in shorter pieces as well as longer articles. Entries should be between 1 and 10 single-spaced pages. While these entries do not need extensive citation, any assertion must be supported by a reliable source in the form of a footnote. A submission will be reviewed by the editorial board of the Rutgers Law Record and will not be rejected until it has been reviewed by at least three members of the editorial board. The individual members will review the article for clarity, grammar, citation form, citation strength. and the strength of the argument. For more information, or to submit an entry, please contact the Law Record at firstname.lastname@example.org.