Tulane Law Review
  • Main
  • Issues
    • All Volumes
    • Volume 87
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
      • Issue 5 & 6
    • Volume 86
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
      • Issue 5
      • Issue 6
    • Volume 85
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
      • Issue 5&6
    • Volume 84
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
      • Issue 5
      • Issue 6
    • Admiralty Law Institute
      • 2013
      • 2011
      • 2009
      • 2007
      • 2005
      • 2003
      • 2001
      • 1999
      • 1995
      • 1994
      • 1991
      • 1989
      • 1988
      • 1985
      • 1983
  • Events
  • Masthead
  • History
  • Purpose
  • Submissions
  • Order
    • Subscribe
    • Back Issues
  • Contact
Tulane Law Review
RSSTwitterFacebook
All Volumes | Volume 85 | Issue 3

“Unnecessary to Address”?: Tackling the Louisiana Supreme Court’s Open Question of Whether a Continuing Tort Can Suspend the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act’s One-Year Peremptive Period

Justin M. Woodard | Comment

This Comment analyzes the open issue of whether a continuing tort can suspend the one-year peremptive period for bringing a claim under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act. It begins by tracking the development of the continuing tort doctrine in Louisiana jurisprudence as a suspension principle to both prescriptive and peremptive limitations periods. After looking at the application of continuing tort to statutory peremptive periods, such as those provided by the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act and Louisiana Legal Malpractice Act, the Comment turns to the split in the Louisiana Courts of Appeal as to whether a continuing tort can suspend [...]

[Continue Reading...]

Could You? Should You? Florida v. J.L.: Danger Dicta, Drunken Bombs, and the Universe of Anonymity

Chris La Tronica | Comment

Recently, the United States Supreme Court passed on a chance to consider the legitimacy of investigatory stops based on uncorroborated anonymous tips of drunk driving, preferring this issue continue to ferment in the lower courts. When facing this issue, some lower courts seize the opportunity to carve out a drunk-driving exception to the Fourth Amendment based on “danger dicta” found in Florida v. J.L. Other courts hold fast to the corroboration requirement for anonymous informants in Alabama v. White. This Comment considers whether both approaches fail to take full advantage of existing Fourth Amendment jurisprudence so that police can effectively [...]

[Continue Reading...]

“Living Separate and Apart”: Solving the Problem of Putative Community Property in Louisiana

Casey E. Faucon | Article

This Article argues that Louisiana should instead adopt a modified form of the common law doctrine of “living separate and apart” to address the problems created by the current Louisiana law as to the apportionment of putative community property. Washington, California, and Arizona—all community property states—use the doctrine of living separate and apart in the context of classification of assets. Although the standard differs among the three states, the basic principle is that the spouses can conduct themselves in a manner that demonstrates that they are not only physically, but also emotionally living separate and apart, even if the marriage [...]

[Continue Reading...]

Classifying Virtual Property in Community Property Regimes: Are My Facebook Friends Considered Earnings, Profits, Increases in Value, or Goodwill?

Sally Brown Richardson | Article

Virtual property, or that property which exists only in the intangible world of cyberspace, is of growing importance. Millions of people use virtual property every day, be it an e-mail account, a blog, or a Facebook profile; billions of dollars are spent to acquire virtual property. As the importance of virtual property continues to increase at light year speed, laws pertaining to virtual property must similarly develop. Among the legal issues yet unaddressed is how community property regimes will respond to virtual community (or virtual separate) property. Spouses are on the brink of litigating issues such as whether a Uniform [...]

[Continue Reading...]

Clarity and Confusion: RICO’s Recent Trips to the United States Supreme Court

Randy D. Gordon | Article

The complicated structure of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act has bedeviled courts and litigants since its adoption four decades ago. Two questions have recurred with some frequency. First, is victim reliance an element of a civil RICO claim predicated on allegations of fraud? Second, what is the difference between an illegal association-in-fact and an ordinary civil conspiracy? In a series of three recent cases, the United States Supreme Court brought much needed clarity to the first question. But in another recent case, the Court upended decades of circuit-court precedent holding that an actionable association-in-fact must embody a set [...]

[Continue Reading...]

Did You Ever Hear of the Napoleonic Code, Stella? A Mixed Jurisdiction Impact Analysis From Louisiana’s Law Laboratory

Markus G. Puder Tul. L. Rev. Article

This Article develops the themes of history, language, and culture in the art of mixed jurisdiction impact analysis. It showcases a specific law (former article 177 of the Louisiana Civil Code) governing the liability of the building master for things thrown out of the house into the street or public road. Our case study gives real meaning to the Romanist mixité wrought into Louisiana’s civilian core. The reader is not only invited to take a seat on the time machine for a journey through Louisiana’s codal triad back to Roman law with stops in Medieval Spanish law and Pre-Napoleonic French [...]

[Continue Reading...]

Mixed Public-Private Speech and the Establishment Clause

Claudia E. Haupt | Article

Determining responsibility for speech is important for two reasons: to address rights to forum access and to identify whether Establishment Clause limits apply. Private speakers may demand rights of access to a public forum, and in such a forum they may articulate their message free from viewpoint restrictions. Private speech, moreover, is not subject to Establishment Clause limits. If the speech is government speech, the Free Speech Clause does not apply, and the government may articulate its message to the exclusion of all other speakers. If the government speech has religious content, it may run afoul of the Establishment Clause. [...]

[Continue Reading...]
  • Directory

    • All Volumes
      • Volume 87
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5 & 6
      • Volume 86
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
      • Volume 85
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5 & 6
      • Volume 84
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6

Contact

Tulane Law Review
Tulane University Law School
6329 Freret Street
New Orleans, Louisiana 70118-6231
Telephone: (504) 865-5973 or (504) 865-5974
Facsimile: (504) 862-8858
E-mail: lawjournals@tulane.edu

Return to the Tulane website.

© 2012 Tulane Law Review

Search

Topics

Administrative Law Admiralty Jurisdiction Admiralty Law Antiassignment Clauses Antitrust Law Arbitration Child Custody Choice of Law Civil Law Civil Procedure Community Property Comparative Law Constitutional Law Contract Law Corporate Law Criminal Law Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Employment Law Energy Law Environmental Law Family Law Federalism and Preemption Federal Preemption of State Law Fourth Amendment Health Care Law Insurance Law Intellectual Property Intercollegiate Athletics International Law Judicial Review Law and Economics Local Government Localism Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act Mixed Jurisdictions Municipal Government Piracy Preemption of State Tort Law Property Law Right to Counsel Roman Law Software Transactions Sports Law Tax Law Tort Law