A Parent’s Apparent Authority: Why Intergenerational Coresidence Requires a Reassessment of Parental Consent to Search Adult Children’s Bedrooms

The proliferation of multigenerational U.S. households provides a new perspective on the social customs and practices concerning coresidence in the United States. Rather than relying outdated presumptions of parental control, this Article argues that police should be compelled to conduct a more thorough inquiry before searching areas occupied exclusively by the adult child. Police should differentiate between common and private areas, and inquire into any agreements - formal or informal - that the parent and child may have regarding access and control over such areas. By fully recognizing the changing nature of the American household and rejecting a bare reliance on the presumption of parental control, parents and adult children alike will be afforded the Fourth Amendment protection they deserve

Popular Culture as a Lens on Legal Professionalism

This Article argues that the cultural images of lawyering provide opportunities for teaching professionalism that go well beyond the teaching of ethical rules using hypothetical facts. We contend that use of different media allows teachers to chart the broad middle ground between disciplinary minima and aspirational maxima - the map of realistic professional practice. This ground includes both rule- and conduct-based ideas of professionalism: careful role definition; responsible practice management; appropriate balance between public and private commitments; and concerns over manners, dress, and work ethic. The middle ground also includes less traditional content, discussion of which brings students to appreciate the subjective disciplines of lawyering. The subjective dimension includes the feel of lawyering for the practitioner: the psychic demands of an active, fully engaged practice. It also includes the subjective experience of the clients who use lawyers, as well as the complex interweaving of subjective and external factors in the situations in which lawyers are called to act

Securities Fraud as Corporate Governance: Reflections upon Federalism

State law gives corporate managers extremely broad power to direct increasingly large pools of collective business assets. Not surprisingly, economic incentives, norms, markets, and law all work to constrain the breadth of the power and the potential for abuse of what is other people\u27s money.\u27 State corporate law has occupied the center stage in the legal portion of this landscape, with federal securities law playing a supporting role-at least in the academic presentation of the debate. The New Deal\u27s securities legislation eschewed a general federal corporations statute in favor of a more focused federal role emphasizing disclosure and antifraud protections for those who purchase and sell securities. The Supreme Court has made clear that fraud as proscribed in federal law was not to be defined in a way that annexed corporate governance. And, in 1995, Congress expressed a clear desire to limit the use of federal securities fraud lawsuits, at least insofar as those lawsuits were perceived to be frivolous. Yet, as this Article demonstrates, federal securities law and enforcement via securities fraud class actions today have become the most visible means of regulating corporate governance. Securities fraud law is ostensibly directed at buyers and sellers of securities, but in the context of class actions, this purchaser-seller connection acts more like the minimalist jurisdictional hook of the interstate commerce requirement than a real constraint on the use of securities law to regulate corporate governance. Federal securities law is, of course, not the only legal constraint on managerial behavior, and a shareholder lawsuit based on disclosure is not the only litigation remedy. State law continues to provide the legal skeleton for the corporate form, and state fiduciary duty litigation continues as a mechanism frequently utilized to monitor managers. Yet, in today\u27s world, state law does so almost entirely in two contexts-acquisitions and self-dealing transactions. The empirical evidence in this Article illustrates that corporate governance outside of these areas has passed to federal law and in particular to shareholder litigation under Rule 10b-5

Market Intermediation, Publicness, and Securities Class Actions

Securities class actions play a crucial, if contested, role in the policing of securities fraud and the protection of securities markets. The theoretical understanding of these private enforcement claims needs to evolve to encompass the broader set of goals that underlie the securities regulatory impulse and the publicness of those goals. Further, a clear grasp of the modern securities class action also requires an updated understanding of how the role of market intermediation in securities transactions has reshaped the realities of securities litigation in public companies and the evolution of the fraud cause of action in the context of open-market transactions. The Supreme Court’s embrace of market efficiency as a mechanism to establish reliance in its 1988 decision, Basic Inc. v. Levinson, illustrates the necessary adaptation of common-law fraud to the modern market setting, and congressional enactment of the PSLRA in 1995 exemplifies the efforts to respond to the litigation risks inherent in that adaptation. Together, Basic and the PSLRA provide a framework for understanding both a series of recent Supreme Court decisions on securities class actions and a different understanding of the theory undergirding those class actions. To develop this understanding, we expand the conversation about the goals of securities regulation to include the set of goals that are rooted in publicness and focus on market protection, innovation, and growth, as well as stability and systemic considerations. We posit that this broader theoretical understanding explains why the Court rejected a challenge to the fraud-on-the-market doctrine and, instead, permitted the continued use of market efficiency: the Court chose to preserve the deterrence and enforcement role of these cases in promoting market growth and innovation. We then apply this understanding of publicness and market intermediation to the interpretation of the Court’s limited, but ambiguous, use of “price impact” in securities-fraud cases. Our analysis reveals that the practical balance established by Basic and the PSLRA has prevailed over pure doctrinal approaches to issues like reliance or other, more incomplete, theoretical explanations focused solely on compensation, deterrence, and investor protection, but neglects the role of publicness in the securities markets

Protecting Homeowners\u27 Privacy Rights in the Age of Drones: The Role of Community Associations

Homeowners\u27 notions of privacy in their dwellings and surroundings are under attack from the threat of pervasive surveillance by small civilian drones equipped with highly sophisticated visual and data-gathering capabilities. Streamlined rules recently issued by the Federal Aviation Administration ( FAA\u27) have unleashed technological innovation that promises great societal benefits. However, the new rules expose homeowners to unwanted snooping because they lack limits on the distance drones may operate from residential dwellings or time of operations. Indeed, our society should not expect a federal agency to deal effectively with the widely diverse issues of drone technology facing the states, given the different needs of urban and rural communities. The FAA wisely anticipates adopting a multi-layered regulatory framework to address privacy issues. State and local governments, by contrast, are lagging far behind in regulatory efforts, and Fourth Amendment jurisprudence has not kept pace with the privacy issues raised by drones operating in residential areas. Municipalities are best prepared to craft reasonable limitations to safeguard their residents, but few are doing so at the neighborhood level. Fortunately, the sixty-eight million homeowners living in condominium and homeowner associations and cooperatives ( community associations\u27)may look to such quasi-governmental organizations for nimble and responsive action where they live. Community associations have authority and powers similar to municipalities and constitute the level of government closest to homeowners. This Article demonstrates that community associations, home to twenty percent of America\u27s homeowners, constitute the level of government most familiar with characteristics of their neighborhoods and are the best positioned entities for safeguarding the privacy expectations of their homeowners as society adjusts to the uncertain and accelerating world of drone technology

Émigré Cultures in Design and Architecture

Review of Émigré Cultures in Design and Architecture, Reviewed September 2019 by Hillary B. Veeder, Architecture Public Services Librarian, Texas Tech University, [email protected]

Indoor America: the Interior Landscape of Postwar Suburbia

Review of Indoor America: the Interior Landscape of Postwar Suburbia, Reviewed March 2019 by Hillary B. Veeder, Architecture Public Services Librarian, Texas Tech University Libraries, [email protected]