Tulane Law Review
  • Main
  • About
    • History
    • Purpose
    • Contact
    • Masthead
  • TLR Online
  • Issues
    • All Volumes
    • Volume 92
      • Vol. 92 Issue 1
      • Vol. 92 Issue 2
      • Vol. 92 Issue 3
    • Volume 91
      • Vol. 91 Issue 1
      • Vol. 91 Issue 2
      • Vol. 91 Issue 3
      • Vol. 91 Issue 4
    • Volume 90
      • Vol. 90 Issue 1
      • Vol. 90 Issue 2
      • Vol. 90 Issue 3
      • Vol. 90 Issue 4
      • Vol. 90 Issue 5
    • Volume 89
      • Vol. 89 Issue 1
      • Vol. 89 Issue 2
      • Vol. 89 Issue 3
      • Vol. 89 Issue 4
      • Vol. 89 Issue 5 & 6
  • Events
  • News
  • Submissions
    • Submissions
    • Online Submissions
  • Order
    • Subscribe
    • Back Issues
Tulane Law Review
RSSTwitterFacebook
Issues | All Volumes | Volume 86

Index, Volume 86

|
[Continue Reading...]

Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin: The Fifth Circuit Questions Judicial Deference to Race-Conscious Admissions Policies in Higher Education

Kathleen McNearney | Note

The Fifth Circuit held that as long as Grutter remained good law, UT’s use of race-conscious measures in admissions decisions complied with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it was narrowly tailored to achieve a critical mass of minorities despite its simultaneous use of the Ten Percent Law. Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, 631 F.3d 213, 246-47 (5th Cir. 2011), cert. granted, 132 S. Ct. 1536 (2012).

[Continue Reading...]

Capitalism, Liberalism, and the Right to Privacy

Ofer Raban | Article

The constitutional right to privacy is a doctrinal mess. The United States Supreme Court appears incapable of articulating a coherent underpinning to this important line of cases, or–more likely–is simply unwilling to do so. And yet there is an obvious candidate for that job: the philosophy of liberalism. But liberalism is a notoriously complicated and contested philosophy. Thus, this Article proposes a succinct and functional articulation of liberalism, which it then applies to Supreme Court cases dealing with the right to privacy. As we shall see, the Court’s failure to follow liberal principles lies at the heart of its inconsistencies. [...]

[Continue Reading...]

Hiding Behind the Cloak of Invisibility: The Supreme Court and Per Curiam Opinions

Ira P. Robbins | Article

Per curiam—literally translated from Latin to “by the court”—is defined by Black’s Law Dictionary as “[a]n opinion handed down by an appellate court without identifying the individual judge who wrote the opinion.” Accordingly, the author of a per curiam opinion is meant to be institutional rather than individual, attributable to the court as an entity rather than to a single judge. The United States Supreme Court issues a significant number of per curiam dispositions each Term. In the first six years of Chief Justice John Roberts’s tenure, almost nine percent of the Court’s full opinions were per curiams. The prevalence [...]

[Continue Reading...]

Gulf Coast v. Newlin: Reaffirming the Fundamental Notions of Admiralty Jurisdiction

Sydney B. Roth | Note

The Fifth Circuit held that the district court did not have admiralty jurisdiction over this action, because Gulf Coast lacked a legal claim to title or possession of the dredge, and its contract and tort claims did not constitute maritime claims, which would have afforded a basis for admiralty jurisdiction. Gulf Coast Shell & Aggregate LP v. Newlin, 623 F.3d 235, 237, 2011 AMC 421, 422 (5th Cir. 2010).

[Continue Reading...]

Advisory Adjudication

Girardeau A. Spann | Article

The Supreme Court decision in Camreta v. Greene is revealing. The Court first issues an opinion authorizing appeals by prevailing parties in qualified immunity cases, even though doing so entails the issuance of an advisory opinion that is not necessary to resolution of the dispute between the parties. And the Court then declines to reach the merits of the underlying constitutional claim in the case, because doing so would entail the issuance of an advisory opinion that was not necessary to the resolution of the dispute between the parties. The Court’s decision, therefore, has the paradoxical effect of both honoring [...]

[Continue Reading...]

With Adar v. Smith, the Fifth Circuit Opens a Hole in the Full Faith and Credit Clause

Cassandra R. Hewlings | Note

[T]he Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc, held the obligation imposed on state courts under the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not give rise to a cause of action under § 1983 against nonjudicial state actors; that the Registrar’s refusal to issue a birth certificate listing both Adar and Smith as parents did not deny full faith and credit to the New York adoption; and that Louisiana’s adoption law restricting joint adoption to married couples was rationally related to its legitimate interest in encouraging stable familial environments for adopted children. Adar v. Smith, 639 F.3d 146, 154, 161-62 (5th Cir. [...]

[Continue Reading...]

In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litigation: Upholding Freedom of Contract

Erin Bambrick | Note

In answering the certified question, the Louisiana Supreme Court held that public policy in Louisiana does not bar the application of an antiassignment clause to postloss assignments where the language of the antiassignment clause “clearly and unambiguously express[es]” the parties’ intention that the clause will apply to postloss assignments. In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litigation, 2010-1823, pp. 7, 12 (La. 5/10/11); 63 So. 3d 955, 960, 963.

[Continue Reading...]

The Louisiana Supreme Court Affirms Health Care Providers’ Freedom To Contract for Below-Schedule Reimbursement Rates in Agilus Health v. Accor Lodging North America

Kara K. McQueen-Borden | Note

The Louisiana Supreme Court held that valid PPO contracts did not violate Louisiana law by authorizing reimbursement payments to providers in amounts less than those specified by the LWCA’s reimbursement schedule. Agilus Health v. Accor Lodging North America, 2010-0800, pp.11-12 (La. 11/30/10); 52 So. 3d 68, 76-77.

[Continue Reading...]

The Boundary Claim’s Caveat: Lawyers and Confidentiality Exceptionalism

Rebecca Aviel | Article

In legal ethics scholarship, the “boundary claim” stands for the idea that lawyers must represent clients zealously but within the bounds of the law. The idea has long been embraced by the legal profession as both a description of— and justification for—the unique moral, social, and political space occupied by lawyers. This Article asserts that this professed commitment to obey the law comes with a caveat: the legal profession has been unwilling to acknowledge that lawyers must comply with laws that require the disclosure of client confidences. In fact, the bar has a fairly extensive history of suggesting or asserting [...]

[Continue Reading...]
  • ← Previous Entries
  • Directory

    • All Volumes
      • Volume 92
        • Vol. 92 Issue 1
        • Vol. 92 Issue 2
        • Vol. 92 Issue 3
        • Vol. 92 Issue 4
        • Vol. 92 Issue 5
      • Volume 91
        • Vol. 91 Issue 1
        • Vol. 91 Issue 2
        • Vol. 91 Issue 3
      • Volume 90
        • Vol. 90 Issue 1
        • Vol. 90 Issue 2
        • Vol. 90 Issue 3
        • Vol. 90 Issue 4
        • Vol. 90 Issue 5
      • Volume 89
        • Vol. 89 Issue 1
        • Vol. 89 Issue 2
        • Vol. 89 Issue 3
        • Vol. 89 Issue 4
        • Issue 5 & 6
      • Volume 88
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
      • 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

Search

Topics

Administrative Law Admiralty Law 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 Human Rights Index Insurance Law Intellectual Property Intercollegiate Athletics International Law Judicial Review Law and Economics Local Government Localism Louisiana and French Law Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act Mixed Jurisdictions Municipal Government Piracy Preemption of State Tort Law Property Law Right to Privacy Software Transactions Sports Law Tax Law Tort Law

Archives

All entries, chronologically...

  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • September 2017
  • May 2017
  • February 2017
  • November 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016