Voluntary Dismissal of Time-Barred Claims

Both state and federal courts have procedural rules that allow a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss a claim without prejudice and then to refile it within the applicable statute-of-limitations period. However , a plaintiff’ s right to this procedural avenue is not absolute, and courts maintain broad discretion in deciding whether to dismiss a claim with or without prejudice. If a court allows a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss a time-barred claim without prejudice, the plaintiff may be able to refile the claim in a jurisdiction with a longer statute of limitations. As a result, the defendant loses the ability to assert a statute-of-limitations defense in subsequent litigation. Courts disagree about whether the defendant’s loss of a statute- of-limitations defense constitutes “clear legal prejudice” sufficient to bar voluntary dismissal without prejudice. This Note explores this disagreement. First, it examines the two ways courts currently decide motions for voluntary dismissal of time-barred claims. Next, it argues that both approaches overlook a fundamental factor: res judicata (claim preclusion). Specifically, courts do not consider that statute-of-limitations dismissals are not claim preclusive in every jurisdiction. To account for the differences in preclusion law, this Note proposes that, as a threshold inquiry, courts should determine what the claim-preclusive effect of a statute-of-limitations dismissal would be. Based on this determination, a court can decide whether the loss of a statute-of-limitations defense results in “clear legal prejudice” to the defendant and whether a dismissal without prejudice is warranted

Vascular Dementia: A Guide to Caring for a Family Member with Dementia

https://aquila.usm.edu/student_brochures/1006/thumbnail.jp

Documenting Social Enterprises: A Wider Look into Best Practices

The Hunger Project is a global, non-profit, strategic organization committed to the sustainable end of world hunger. For my Senior Capstone Project, I applied to collaborate with The Hunger Project who then proposed a project to me. I have gained insight into the eight African countries’ current social enterprises supported by The Hunger Project, evaluated their success, and assessed what could be done to make them more successful. My project included completing three specific tas: first, cataloging the social enterprises, second, rating their profitability and social impact, and third, creating a leverage plan for those in need of improvement. These tasks have been completed from consistent contact with each country’s Program Officers and Country Directors, the use of Survey Monkey to create a comprehensive survey incorporating questions to reflect enterprises’ success, and SPSS software to analyze results to construct a landscape assessment of the social enterprises. At the end of analysis, I was able to highlight the best-performing social enterprises to leverage lessons for those social enterprises that could enhance their success

Forging a Good Unilateral Contract or a Series of Good Contracts out of a Bad Bilateral Contract

The title of this article is suggested by an article written by the late Dean Finn, then Professor Finn, in the Brooklyn Law Review. In that article Dean Finn urged, “Let us forge good unilaterals out of bad bilaterals if conscience points the way.” That article did not attempt to formulate rules which would help determine when the forging should occur. Professor Williston comes little closer to the formulation of a rule when he states: “An insufficient bilateral agreement may sometimes by performance on one side become a valid unilateral contract.” The purpose of this Article is to explore some of the problems concealed in Williston’s use of the word “sometimes” and to set forth some general rules which should apply to any phase of this problem. It will also examine the related problem of forging a series of good contracts out of a bad bilateral contract