Tulane Law Review
  • Main
  • Issues
    • All Volumes
    • Volume 87
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
    • 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
      • 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 86 | Issue 3

Rethinking the Harmonization of Jurisdictional Rules

Simona Grossi | Article
In the aftermath of the various unsuccessful attempts by the Hague Conference to devise an international convention on jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments, this work examines what the common law and civil law delegations to the Conference considered irreconcilable differences between their respective jurisdictional laws. This Article studies the historical and functional evolution of these allegedly irreconcilable jurisdictional categories, examines their underlying ideas (for example, “minimum contacts” and due process analysis, forum non conveniens, and tag jurisdiction), and suggests a new method of analysis, which generates a unified approach to jurisdictional law and choice of law rules. The [...]
[Continue Reading...]

Which the Deader Hand? A Counter to the American Law Institute’s Proposed Revival of Dying Perpetuities Rules

Scott Andrew Shepard | Article
Encouraged primarily by a fluke in federal estate and gift tax law, more than half of the states have either effectively or entirely abolished their rules against perpetuities in the past two decades. The American Law Institute, deeply troubled by this development, has adopted for its Third Restatement a proposed rule against perpetuities that would essentially prohibit conditional gifts to continue for the benefit of parties born more than two generations after the transferor. The ALI’s efforts are misguided. The rule against perpetuities was the product of a legal, political, and social age very different than our own. It was [...]
[Continue Reading...]

Many-to-Many Contracts

Heidi S. Bond | Article
In classical contract law, the concept of one-to-one negotiations is familiar: contracts where one party negotiates with the other and, eventually, terms are offered and then accepted. More modern times have made us comfortable with the notion of one-to-many contracts: contracts typically drafted by large corporations and then distributed on a take-it-or-leave-it basis to the masses. This Article discusses a third kind of contract: a many-to-many contract, which may look like the standard one-to-many contract in that it is composed of nonnegotiable language. But when the arrangements between the parties are further considered, we will see that the point of [...]
[Continue Reading...]

Louisiana’s Mono Lake: The Public Trust Doctrine and Oil Company Liability for Louisiana’s Vanishing Wetlands

Sam Brandao Tul. L. Rev. Comment

Louisiana’s coastal land is dissolving. As the political branches struggle to address the emergency, the courts may provide an unlooked-for catalyst. Private actions against oil companies are unlikely to play a major role in resolving the coastal crisis because of the scale of the problem. This Comment suggests that an action against a state agency under the public trust doctrine could be the electric shock that galvanizes the political branches into a meaningful response. After briefly discussing the development of the federal public trust doctrine, its application in California, and its culmination in the California case known as Mono Lake, [...]

[Continue Reading...]

Devil inside the Deal: An Examination of Louisiana Noncompete Agreements in Business Acquisitions

Albert O. “Chip” Saulsbury, IV | Article

In a noncompete agreement, one party agrees with another to refrain from engaging in a particular line of business or from soliciting customers of another person. Buyers in business acquisitions seek these covenants because sellers, when not restricted by an enforceable noncompete agreement, can destroy the value of the business sold through their own competitive acts. Over the past twenty years, Louisiana courts have inappropriately applied the “strong public policy” requiring strict construction of noncompete agreements in the employment context to all noncompete agreements, including those executed ancillary to the sale of a business. The application of this policy is [...]

[Continue Reading...]

The Usufruct Revisions: The Power to Dispose of Nonconsumables Now Expressly Includes Alienation, Lease, and Encumbrance; Has the Louisiana Legislature Fundamentally Altered the Nature of Usufruct?

Adam N. Matasar | Comment

This Comment discusses the 2010 Louisiana Civil Code revisions to the law of usufruct and critically analyzes whether the revisions to the power to dispose of nonconsumables upset the usufructuary’s and naked owner’s perilous balance of rights inherent in the law of usufruct. It begins by laying out the foundations of ownership and usufruct in the Louisiana civil law system. After exploring the contours of these general principles, the Comment tracks the development of the power to dispose of nonconsumables from jurisprudential beginnings, through initial legislative codification, and up to the 2010 revision under Act 881.

Delving deeper, this Comment [...]

[Continue Reading...]
  • Directory

    • All Volumes
      • Volume 87
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
      • 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 Environmental Law Family Law Federalism and Preemption Federal Preemption of State Law Fourth Amendment Health Care Law Intellectual Property Intercollegiate Athletics International Law Judicial Review Law and Economics Local Government Localism Louisiana's Wetlands Louisiana Noncompete Agreements 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