Bad Blood? Why Labels are Rethinking Re-Recording Clauses in the Wake of the Taylor\u27s Version Era

https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/flyers-2023-2024/1125/thumbnail.jp

ARIZONA V. NAVAJO NATION AND SYSTEMIC FAILURES IN THE TRIBAL WATER ALLOCATION SCHEME

When the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Arizona v. Navajo Nation was published in June 2023, Indian Country was hardly surprised with the Court’s ruling. There, the Court found that the United States had no affirmative duty to affirmatively protect the Navajo Nation’s water rights under the 1868 Treaty.1 The Court was clear: the treaty is insufficient for the Navajo’s current water needs, but the judiciary is unable to step in to find relief.2 This decision is another in a long series of cases on water allocation and the federal reserved water right, where tribes have been unable to obtain fundamental rights and/or basic needs guaranteed by treaty. The current legal system by which Native American tribes quantify their federal reserved water allocation right is overly complex and archaic, leaving tribes in a particularly vulnerable position trying to secure water for their people and regular operations. This problem will worsen along with climate change, as higher temperatures lead to lower water levels and tribes and states continue to compete for limited water resources for their people. This note first reviews the decision in Arizona v. Navajo Nation, with a particular focus on Justice Neil Gorsuch’s Dissent and the greater implications of the case. The paper then outlines water allocation schemes in the United States on a state (riparian, prior appropriation, and hybrid) and federal level (federal reserved rights). The paper goes on to discuss how federal reserved water rights apply to Native American tribes. Moreover, it outlines primary conflicts in water allocation between tribes and the states, particularly Arizona. It then addresses the current structure of tribal water settlements. Finally, this paper concludes with recommendations for Congressional intervention in setting standards for interpreting and quantifying tribal water allocation and general settlement improvements

Chatardeep Singh v. Attorney General United States of America

Agenc

Chadwick v. State of Nevada, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 10 (Feb. 29, 2024)

In an appeal regarding a conviction for fleeing the scene of an accident involving personal injury, the Nevada Court of Appeals upheld the lower court\u27s ruling. The court held that the district court appropriately admitted evidence of the appellant\u27s alcohol consumption and intoxication, deeming it relevant to his motive for fleeing the accident scene. Additionally, the court ruled that when a defendant directly introduces evidence of bad acts, it falls upon the defendant to request an instruction limiting the jury\u27s consideration of such evidence

From Historical to Cutting-Edge: Equity Receiverships as a Tool to Resolve Mass Torts

Recent scholarship has paid significant attention to the strategic exploitation of Chapter 11 reorganization procedures by corporations seeking to circumvent mass tort liability. The presence of these structural issues evoke serious concerns about the suitability of bankruptcy as a method for resolving mass tort claims and its role in deterring future wrongful conduct. However, reorganization procedures, like Chapter 11, do offer some advantages for mass tort claimants. By consolidating claims and enabling continued business operations during the pendency of proceedings, reorganization has the potential to more efficiently resolve mass tort claims and yield a greater pool of potential recovery for claimants. This Comment presents an alternative method of reorganization to resolve mass torts. It suggests that equity receiverships—a once common remedial mechanism now displaced by Chapter 11—provides a process for reorganization that better ensures corporate accountability for tortious conduct. It also outlines a framework to revive equity receivership practice as a remedy for modern mass torts. A return of equity receiverships would provide a much-needed alternative to Chapter 11, enhancing the position of disadvantaged tort victims in our legal system and discouraging corporate debtors from using bankruptcy to minimize tort liability

Hail Mary: Considering Alternatives to the NCAA\u27s Inaction to Remedy Discriminatory Hiring Practices in Division I Football

The current changing tides in the modern-day sports landscape makes now the perfect time to understand the crux of the racial disparity issue in an effort to target the groups best suited to ameliorate the issue. At a time where the governance model of the NCAA is in flux, many are calling for federal and state intervention. The changing tides in the modern-day sports landscape make now an appropriate time to revisit the dilemma. This Essay describes racial disparity obstacles in NCAA hiring practices and identifies an array of possible actors best suited to make the fix. Section I presents statistics that demonstrate the severity of the head coach diversity issue in Division I (DI) NCAA football. Section II seeks to document the NCAA’s official response and action steps the entity has implemented to remedy the situation. Section III outlines the most commonly suggested “fix”: The Robinson Rule. This section will introduce the NCAA version of the National Football League’s (NFL) Rooney Rule and explain why the NCAA has refused to enforce it. Next, Section IV will briefly discuss alternatives to the Rooney Rule that may lead to a solution that appoints qualified Black head coaching positions proportionate to Black student athlete’s involvement in the NCAA. Finally, Section V concludes with a call to action