Table of Contents

Precarious Possession

John A. Lovett, Loyola University New Orleans College of Law

DIRECTV, Inc. v. Imburgia: How the Supreme Court Used a Jedi Mind Trick To Turn Arbitration Law Upside Down

Imre S. Szalai, Loyola University New Orleans College of Law

Racial Origins of Doctrines Limiting Prisoner Protest Speech

Andrea C. Armstrong, Loyola University New Orleans College of Law

Human Rights Proxy Wars

Johanna Kalb, Loyola University New Orleans College of Law


LEGAL SCHOLARSHIP NETWORK: LEGAL STUDIES RESEARCH PAPER SERIES
LOYOLA UNIVERSITY NEW ORLEANS COLLEGE OF LAW

"Precarious Possession" Free Download
77 La. L. Rev 617 (2017)
Loyola University New Orleans College of Law Research Paper No. 2017-01

JOHN A. LOVETT, Loyola University New Orleans College of Law
Email:

Acquisitive prescription is a time-honored institution in civil law property regimes generally and in Louisiana property law in particular. Precarious possession is an equally important concept. A recent Louisiana Supreme Court decision, Boudreaux v. Cummings, 167 So.3d 3d 599 (La. 2015), has raised important questions about the intersection of acquisitive prescription and precarious possession in Louisiana law. This article reconstructs the law of precarious possession to answer some of those questions. It traces how Louisiana’s two-tier institution of good and bad faith acquisitive prescription emerged from Roman law and pre-codification French and Spanish law, discusses how French commentators interpreted their codified version of that law and approached the problem of precarious possession with caution, and defends the continuing viability of Louisiana’s two-tier institution of acquisitive prescription. The article then reviews a significant body of Louisiana case law addressing precarious possession in the context of possessory actions and acquisitive prescription. It demonstrates that in two categories of cases—those involving true strangers and persons involved in contractual or legal status relationships—Louisiana courts reach defensible and consistent outcomes. But it argues that in a third category of cases—those involving neighbors who know each other well or members of the same close-knit community—courts face acute challenges and produce inconsistent results. The article contends that to resolve this third category of cases with greater sensitivity to the virtue of property sharing and to the specific relational context of these disputes, Louisiana law would benefit from the adoption of a presumption of sharing and concomitant indicia of giving or renunciation.

"DIRECTV, Inc. v. Imburgia: How the Supreme Court Used a Jedi Mind Trick To Turn Arbitration Law Upside Down" Free Download
32 Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution 75 (2017)
Loyola University New Orleans College of Law Research Paper No. 2017-02

IMRE S. SZALAI, Loyola University New Orleans College of Law
Email:

The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) is the primary federal statute governing millions of arbitration agreements that have mushroomed in every nook and cranny of modern American society. The Supreme Court of the United States has grossly erred when construing and applying the FAA in a long series of cases spanning the last few decades, and these flawed decisions have encouraged this explosion of arbitration agreements across America. In its most recent FAA decision from December 2015, DIRECTV, Inc. v. Imburgia, 136 S. Ct. 463 (2015), the Supreme Court continued its awkward tradition of issuing preposterous FAA rulings. However, the Court in DIRECTV reached a new low, a result so extreme and “dangerous,? according to the dissenting Justices, that the Court’s DIRECTV decision turns arbitration law completely upside down.

This Article explores the Supreme Court’s deeply flawed interpretation of the FAA in DIRECTV. The Court’s decision desecrates the most fundamental principle of arbitration law, that arbitration must be based on the agreement of the parties. The Court in DIRECTV overrides the intent of the parties in this case, as well as the intent of Congress in enacting the FAA. The first part of this Article explains the background of the DIRECTV case. The second part of the Article closely examines the deep, multiple flaws in the opinion. Finally, the Article concludes by addressing how DIRECTV’s holding applies to some common hypotheticals in order to demonstrate the broader impact of this case in shutting off access to America’s civil justice system.

"Racial Origins of Doctrines Limiting Prisoner Protest Speech" Free Download
60 Howard L.J. 221 (2016)
Loyola University New Orleans College of Law Research Paper No. 2017-03

ANDREA C. ARMSTRONG, Loyola University New Orleans College of Law
Email:

This Article examines the racial origins of two foundational cases governing prisoner protest speech to better understand their impact in light of the Black Lives Matter movement. Two Supreme Court cases provide the primary architecture for the regulation of prisoner or detainee speech. The first, Adderley v. Florida, is (mis)interpreted for the proposition that jails (and by analogy, prisons) are non-public spaces. Under First Amendment doctrine, non-public spaces are subject to heightened regulation and suppression of speech is authorized. The second, Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners’ Labor Union, Inc., amplifies the effect of Adderley and prohibits prisoner solicitation for union membership. Together, these two cases effectively provide broad discretion to prison administrators to punish prisoners and detainees for their protest speech. Neither Adderley nor Jones acknowledges its racial origins. Holdings in both cases relied on race-neutral rationales and analysis, and yet the underlying concerns in each case appear tied to racial concerns and fears. Thus, this Article is a continuation of a broader critical race praxis that reminds us that seemingly objective and neutral doctrines themselves may incorporate particular ideas and notions about race. Today’s protesters face a demonstrably different doctrinal landscape: should they protest within the prison or jail walls? While the content of speech by a Black Lives Matter activist may not change, the constitutional protection afforded to that speech will be radically different depending on where she speaks.

"Human Rights Proxy Wars" Free Download
13 Stan. J. C.R. & C.L. 53 (2017)
Loyola University New Orleans College of Law Research Paper No. 2017-04

JOHANNA KALB, Loyola University New Orleans College of Law
Email:

In February 2014, Uganda became the latest in a series of African countries to enact harsh anti-gay legislation. American conservative advocacy groups played a significant and well-publicized role in crafting and building support for this legislation. A large literature documents cases in which progressive transnational networks of advocates have been able to take advantage of the mechanisms of acculturation to promote domestic and global change. Over the last two decades, however, new international networks have emerged that are not dedicated to advancing the international rights agenda. Rather than linking transnational and national allies to promote human rights compliance, these organizations focus on helping domestic partners build up domestic resistance to shifting transnational norms. Domestically, these groups have raised and relied upon arguments based on American sovereignty and democracy in order to undermine the legitimacy of the international human rights regime and increase the cost to American judges and policymakers of invoking international and comparative law. Internationally, conservative legal activists and their network partners in churches, governments, and the NGO sector have adopted strategies that mimic those deployed in the U.S., working to erode the credibility of U.N. institutions and their interpretation of the human right treaties and to reshape national and subnational legal regimes to make them more resistant to influence by international human rights norms. This Article documents and describes the emergence of these networks, and examines their impact on both the theory and practice of transnational human rights advocacy.

^top

About this eJournal

The Loyola University New Orleans College of Law Research Paper Series in Legal Studies contains the recent scholarship of the College's faculty. Established in 1914 in the Jesuit tradition of academic rigor, pursuit of justice, and service to others, the College of Law educates future members of the Bar to be skilled advocates and sensitive counselors-at-law who are committed to ethical norms in pursuit of dignity for all.

The College of Law faculty is a community of scholars committed to excellence in teaching and scholarship, and their academic writing reflects their broad and diverse areas of interest. To access faculty scholarship on SSRN and to subscribe to our Research Paper Series, please follow this link: http://www.ssrn.com/link/Loyola-U-LEG.html

Submissions

To submit your research to SSRN, sign in to the SSRN User HeadQuarters, click the My Papers link on left menu and then the Start New Submission button at top of page.

Distribution Services

If your organization is interested in increasing readership for its research by starting a Research Paper Series, or sponsoring a Subject Matter eJournal, please email: RPS@SSRN.com

Distributed by

Legal Scholarship Network (LSN), a division of Social Science Electronic Publishing (SSEP) and Social Science Research Network (SSRN)

Directors

LAW SCHOOL RESEARCH PAPERS - LEGAL STUDIES

BERNARD S. BLACK
Northwestern University - Pritzker School of Law, Northwestern University - Kellogg School of Management, European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI)
Email: bblack@northwestern.edu

RONALD J. GILSON
Stanford Law School, Columbia Law School, European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI)
Email: rgilson@leland.stanford.edu

Please contact us at the above addresses with your comments, questions or suggestions for LSN-LEG.