Book Review

Book review of "Resolving Conflict Once and For All: A Practical How-to Guide to Mediating Disputes" by Mark Stein and Dennis J. Ernst (Harmony House Publishers, 1996).Published in cooperation with the American Bar Association Section of Dispute Resolutio

Real Property - General Scheme in Enforcement of Restrictive Covenants

Common grantor filed for record a plat of the subdivision in which defendant and plaintiff both own lots. Plaintiff alleged that the subdivision was restricted. Only three of fifteen subdivision deeds entered for record contained written restrictions, and the subdivision plat which had been filed did not show any restrictions. In an action brought by plaintiff to prevent the defendant from violating the alleged restrictions, held, temporary injunction restraining the defendant granted. The court found a general building scheme of which the defendant had actual notice when he purchased his lot.Womack v. Dean, (Tex. Civ. App. 1954) 266 S. W. (2d) 540

Alien Registration- Brown, Herbert R. (Portland, Cumberland County)

https://digitalmaine.com/alien_docs/23832/thumbnail.jp

Admiralty-Laches-Expiration of Analogous State Statute of Limitations as Ground For Dismissal

Plaintiff, a seaman on the S.S. Ioannis, was injured when the Ioannis and the S.S. Stony Point collided. By the time plaintiff filed his action, the three-year state statute of limitations for personal injuries caused by negligence had expired. The District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the complaint on the ground that the expiration of the state statute of limitations caused the plaintiff\u27s action to be barred by !aches. On appeal, held, vacated and remanded. Expiration of the analogous state statute of limitations does not give rise to a presumption that the plaintiff\u27s delay in bringing suit prejudiced the defendant. Larios v. Victory Carriers, Inc., 316 F.2d 63 (2d Cir. 1963)

A Crowded Room or the Perfect Fit? Exploring Affirmative Action Treatment in College and University Admissions for Self-Identified LGBT Individuals

This Article explores affirmative action treatment for self-identified LGBT individuals in college and university admissions. This Article seeks to explain that while granting affirmative action treatment to self-identified students in the admission process is constitutional, under the current affirmative action precedent, there is a lack of sufficient justification for such an expansion. This Article will also explore the advantages and disadvantages should colleges and universities choose to implement affirmative action programs for LGBT applicants. Section I of this Article will begin by depicting the evolution of affirmative action programs since their inception in the early 1960s. This section will also include a discussion of relevant Supreme Court jurisprudence to date (including the Court’s recent rulings in Fisher v. University of Texas). Section II will discuss the varying views that support and oppose affirmative action programs and public opinion concerning affirmative action. Next, Section III will discuss LGBT civil rights and the strides that the LGBT community has made in seeking equality (including the Court’s recent decisions in U.S. v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry). Section IV will provide analysis depicting the parallels and pitfalls of arguments supporting and opposing affirmative action for LGBT individuals. This section will also include a discussion of the constitutionality of extending these programs to benefit self-identified LGBT students. This section will conclude with a discussion of possible pros and cons of extending affirmative action benefits to LGBT students

A second-order approximation for the variance of a renewal reward process

AbstractLet {C(t), t ⩾ 0} be a renewal reward process. We obtain the approximation Var C(t) = ct + d + o(1), and explicitly identify c and d

Constitutional Law - Due Process - Use of Habeas Corpus to Allow Federal Court to Review State Court Jury Determination of Voluntariness of Confession

The prisoner had been convicted of murder in the state court. He brought a habeas corpus proceeding in federal district court to secure his release from custody on the ground that the conviction was based on a confession which was obtained by physical violence. The confession had been submitted to the jury, which was instructed to consider it only if it found that it was not obtained by duress or fear produced by threats. The district court granted the writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, held, affirmed. The district court could determine the facts of the case for itself. Since there was sufficient evidence to support the district court\u27s finding that the confession was coerced, the writ was required to issue notwithstanding the possibility that the jury had rejected the confession and convicted on other evidence. Cranor v. Gonzales, (9th Cir. 1955) 226 F. (2d) 83, ,cert. den. 350 U.S. 935, 76 S.Ct. 307 (1956)

Corporations - Extent to Which Vote of Proxy Binds the Shareholders

Plaintiff; in a derivative action, charged certain directors of the corporation with appropriating a corporate opportunity to their own benefit. Defendant directors moved for summary judgment· on the ground that the questioned transaction was ratified by the stockholders, with plaintiff\u27s stock being voted by proxy in favor of ratification. Held, motion for summary judgment denied. The plaintiff was not estopped from suit even though her proxyholder, the corporation management, voted her stock for the ratification, since she had no notice that the question was to be voted on when she gave her proxy. Gottlieb v. McKee, (Del. Ch. 1954) 107 A._ (2d) 240