July 28, 2014
On July 16th, Professor John Q. Barrett participated in a Nuremberg Memorium program in Courtroom 600 in the Palace of Justice, Nuremberg, Germany, site of the historic Nuremberg trials following World War II. Following a lecture by Dr. Oscar Schneider, a former German Federal Minister, Professor Barrett spoke on “New Law and Not-New Law: Justice Jackson’s Opening Statement at Nuremberg, Addressing the Legality of the Trial.”
While in Nuremberg, Professor Barrett also lectured in Creighton University School of Law’s summer program, “From Nuremberg to The Hague.”
Professor Barrett, biographer of U.S. Supreme Court Justice and Nuremberg chief prosecutor Robert H. Jackson (1892-1954) and writer of “The Jackson List,” is an expert on Jackson, the Nuremberg trials and their legacies. He regularly teaches, speaks and writes about Nuremberg, Jackson and related topics throughout the U.S. and internationally.
July 28, 2014
Professor Jeff Sovern presented the results of the arbitration study he, Professors Elayne Greenberg, Paul Kirgis, and St. John’s University Director of Institutional Assessment Yuxiang Liu have conducted to the Pound Civil Justice Institute’s Forum for State Appellate Court Judges on July 26. Professor Sovern was the luncheon speaker, at an event attended by judges from three dozen states.
July 27, 2014
Professor Jeremy Sheff’s current research project, “Who Should Pay for Progress?”, has been selected as the lead presentation of the opening plenary session of the 14th Annual Intellectual Property Scholars Conference at UC Berkeley. IPSC is the largest annual gathering of the intellectual property law academy, with over 150 scholars from all over the world presenting this year. Professor Sheff’s project investigates how societies do and should satisfy the moral claims of individuals who create new knowledge.
July 25, 2014
Professor Cheryl Wade will present a book chapter at the Southeastern Association of Law Schools Annual Meeting on August 3rd, 2014. Her presentation is part of a panel on Financial Institutions Law and Regulation.
July 19, 2014
Professor Rosemary Salomone will speak on Monday, July 21st at the International Political Science Association 23rd World Congress in Montreal. The topic of her paper is “Making New Citizens: Transatlantic Perspectives on Language, Belonging and Immigrant Schooling.” The following is a summary:
Policies on language and schooling in the United States and Western Europe reveal a decided concern for preserving social cohesion in the face of mounting immigration and cultural and religious diversity. This paper examines how that concern finds expression in contrasting discourses on linguistic pluralism and multiculturalism, how the apparent disconnect between the political rhetoric and reality affects the lives of immigrant students, how the distinct ways in which Europeans and Americans talk about language and immigration influence public attitudes and define the range of language policy options, and how the debate over the role of language in the schools, in one way or another, seems to ignore the impact of globalization and transnationalism and the connection among language, belonging, and citizenship. The discussion begins with the United States where the argument for maintaining immigrant languages, predominantly Spanish, in the schools holds diminishing support despite an unofficial “multiculturalism lite” as a heralded aspect of American identity. By way of contrast, it examines the challenges faced by Western European nations under competing pressures of global English for productivity and supranational directives on multilingualism for European integration and job mobility, while at the same time officially rejecting a presumably “thicker” form of multiculturalism as a politically destabilizing force.
October 18, 2013
Professor Vincent C. Alexander has just published an article in the N.Y.U. Journal of Legislation and Public Policy entitled, The CPLR at Fifty: A View from Academia. The article is based on remarks Professor Alexander delivered at NYU’s Dwight D. Opperman Institute of Judicial Administration on March 12, 2013, as part of a symposium on the fiftieth anniversary of the adoption of New York’s Civil Practice Law and Rules (“CPLR”).
The CPLR has its roots in New York’s groundbreaking Field Code of 1848, but it has evolved into a multifaceted code that carries forward a few too many eccentric and arguably outmoded rules of procedure. The symposium participants, whose remarks are included in the publication, include U.S. Senior District Judge Jack B. Weinstein, who was one of the principal authors of the CPLR, former New York Court of Appeals Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye, NYU Law Professors Oscar G. Chase and William E. Nelson, and practitioner/author David L. Ferstendig.
The symposium reflects upon the creation of the CPLR, its strengths and weaknesses, and its place in the history of procedural reform. Professor Alexander provides an academic perspective, focusing on the teaching, scholarship and law reform opportunities that the CPLR provides. He argues that the New York courts, acting through the Chief Administrative Judge, Judicial Conference and CPLR Advisory Committee, rather than the Legislature alone, should be given the authority to amend the CPLR. Nevertheless, his article concludes:
[T]he CPLR has served the bench and bar of New York quite effectively for the past fifty years. It carries forward New York traditions that apparently are near and dear to the hearts of New York judges and attorneys, and there is value in that. It is a testament to the CPLR’s durability that, unlike the pre-1963 era of New York history, there have been no widespread calls for the overhaul of the New York procedure code. The CPLR may have some quirks, but on the whole, it is a coherent code of procedure . . . . The CPLR gives New York litigants a fair and reasonable means of having their disputes resolved on the merits. Such is the purpose of procedure.
October 17, 2013
Professor Eva Subotnik will present her paper, Constitutional Obstacles? Reconsidering Copyright Protection for Pre-1972 Sound Recordings, co-authored with June M. Besek, this Friday October 18th at the “IP, Meet the Constitution” Junior Scholars Workshop at Columbia Law School. The workshop, co-sponsored by Columbia and Hofstra Law Schools and the Federalist Society, will bring together scholars from Brooklyn, Cardozo, Hofstra, University of Pennsylvania and Yale Law Schools. In their paper, Subotnik and Besek discuss the constitutional issues implicated by the possible extension of federal copyright protection to pre-1972 sound recordings, which currently enjoy only state law protection. The paper is one of the few to address the application of Takings and Due Process law to ‘intellectual’ property, and the issues they discuss may have broad implications for future congressional amendments to IP statutes. The paper will be published this Spring in the Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts. An abstract is available here.
October 14, 2013
Professor John Q. Barrett recently gave the following lectures:
- on September 24, he gave a lunchtime lecture, “Big Break in Brooklyn: Justice Robert H. Jackson’s Life Path & Law Legacy,” to Federal Judges and other personnel at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (live in Brooklyn and by video feed to Central Islip);
- on September 26, he gave an update on last Term’s U.S. Supreme Court decisions to attorneys at the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, in Brooklyn;
- on October 7, he gave the U.S. Supreme Court Update at the Federal Bar Association (EDNY Chapter) annual Federal Practice Update, at the Alphonse M. D’Amato U.S. Courthouse in Central Islip; and
- on October 8, he gave an evening lecture, “Justice Jackson, Nuremberg, and the Pride of Our Grandchildren,” at the Temple American Inn of Court in Philadelphia.
John Q. Barrett
June 26, 2013
This Thursday and Friday, Center of Law and Religion Director Mark Movsesian and Associate Director Marc DeGirolami will participate in the Fourth Annual Law and Religion Roundtable. This year’s roundtable will be hosted at Stanford Law School. Professor Movsesian will present an early-stage project on the Psychic Sophie case and the rise of the Nones on Thursday. Professor DeGirolami will participate in the meeting as a discussant. The ALRR forum is an invitation-only meeting “for scholars of religious freedom to share cutting-edge works and engage in discipline-shaping conversations.”
May 7, 2013
Professor Deepa Varadarajan has been invited to present her paper, Improvement Doctrines, at the 2013 Harvard/Stanford/Yale Junior Faculty Forum. This marks the third year in a row a St. John’s Law professor will present a paper at the Junior Faculty Forum.
Here’s the abstract:
When one party makes significant but unauthorized improvements to another’s land, chattels or informational assets, should the “improving” nature of the act alter the liability or remedy calculus? Traditional property law has long had to resolve conflicts that arise when one person improves another’s land or chattels without permission — for example, if A cuts down B’s trees and fashions a chair, or A erects a building on B’s land. Ordinarily, A would be liable and subject to an injunction because B has a strict right to exclude that is protected by a property rule. But various doctrines in traditional property law, like the doctrines of accession, mistaken improvers of land, and ameliorative waste, make exceptions for improvers. These doctrines either excuse the improver from liability entirely or mandate a remedy more hospitable to the improver. I call these assorted rules “improvement doctrines” and articulate a multi-part framework for understanding the equity and efficiency concerns animating them. In so doing, I challenge the (increasingly contested) presumption that property law unwaveringly favors strict exclusive rights for owners — a presumption that is often invoked by those advocating strict exclusive rights for intellectual property owners.
This Article demonstrates that unlike property law, intellectual property law has been less receptive to improvement doctrines. This is particularly surprising given intellectual property’s normative commitment to progress and innovation. Patented inventions and copyrighted expressive works necessarily build on what came before. While patent law’s “reverse doctrine of equivalents” and copyright’s “fair use” doctrine may provide incidental relief for unauthorized improvers in certain cases, these intellectual property doctrines are often indifferent to improvement. Given the uncertainty of intellectual property boundaries and the societal consequences of deterring improvement, I argue that the concerns motivating traditional property’s improvement doctrines apply with even greater force to intellectual property. Accordingly, I suggest potential areas of reform in patent and copyright law to enhance and regularize judicial consideration of unauthorized improvement at the liability and remedies stages.