Lines in Tropical Quadrics

Classical algebraic geometry is the study of curves, surfaces, and other varieties defined as the zero set of polynomial equations. Tropical geometry is a branch of algebraic geometry based on the tropical semiring with operations minimization and addition. We introduce the notions of projective space and tropical projective space, which are well-suited for answering enumerative questions, like ours. We attempt to describe the set of tropical lines contained in a tropical quadric surface in $\mathbb{TP}^3$. Analogies with the classical problem and computational techniques based on the idea of a tropical parameterization suggest that the answer is the union of two disjoint conics in $\mathbb{TP}^5$

The Ohio Constitution on the Occasion of Its Bicentennial

This symposium issue of the Cleveland State Law Review publishes the papers that were presented at a conference marking the bicentennial of the Ohio Constitution. That conference, held here at Cleveland-Marshall College of Law in April 2003, examined the history and assessed the vitality of-our state constitution. The conference was conceived and its planning was supervised by our Dean, Steven H. Steinglass, who has devoted significant scholarly attention to the Ohio Constitution. In light of my own endeavors in state constitutional law, both as a lawyer and as a scholar, I gladly assisted Dean Steinglass in organizing the conference. In the paragraphs that follow, I briefly summarize each of the contributions to this symposium. Those papers cover a broad range of topics - from Ohio constitutional history and interpretation to race and equal protection, education and tort reform, separation of powers and the one-subject rule

Disentangling the Law of Public Protest

The purpose of this Article is to alleviate the confusion that so frequently surrounds the law of public protest. Much of that confusion can be avoided, when analyzing a given case, by zeroing in on who is regulating the speech in question. There are four regulatory players, who act in four distinct settings: restrictions enacted by legislative bodies, the issuance of permits and fees by government administrators, speech-restrictive injunctions imposed by the judiciary, and the influence of police as a regulatory presence on the street. Discrete lines of precedent attend each of these players. Legislators and judges, for example, are governed by a different legal standard when they impose time, place, or manner restrictions on public protest. Administrators are governed by a special body of precedent when they issue permits for parades or demonstrations. And street-level decisionmaking by police is governed by yet another line of cases. Failure to distinguish among these four regulatory players, and failure to recognize the distinct bodies of precedent that have grown up around each of them, are salient causes for the confusion that so often plagues the law of public protest

Disentangling the Law of Public Protest

The purpose of this Article is to alleviate the confusion that so frequently surrounds the law of public protest. Much of that confusion can be avoided, when analyzing a given case, by zeroing in on who is regulating the speech in question. There are four regulatory players, who act in four distinct settings: restrictions enacted by legislative bodies, the issuance of permits and fees by government administrators, speech-restrictive injunctions imposed by the judiciary, and the influence of police as a regulatory presence on the street. Discrete lines of precedent attend each of these players. Legislators and judges, for example, are governed by a different legal standard when they impose time, place, or manner restrictions on public protest. Administrators are governed by a special body of precedent when they issue permits for parades or demonstrations. And street-level decisionmaking by police is governed by yet another line of cases. Failure to distinguish among these four regulatory players, and failure to recognize the distinct bodies of precedent that have grown up around each of them, are salient causes for the confusion that so often plagues the law of public protest

Workmen\u27s Compensation - Evidence - Opinion of Non-Treating Psychiatrist Based on Claimant\u27s Statements Held Inadmissible - Candella v. Subsequent Injury Fund

Discusses evidentiary requirements in Workers\u27 Compensation cases and circuit court review of Workers\u27 Compensation Commission decisions

The Ambush Interview: A False Light Invasion of Privacy

The \u27\u27ambush interview is a controversial investigative reporting technique permeating both national and local television news programming. In the typical ambush interview, a reporter and his news crew intercept an unsuspecting newsworthy subject on the street and bombard him with incriminating accusations ostensibly framed as questions. The ambush interviewee inevitably appears guilty before the viewing audience. This is due to a variety of forces, including the subject\u27s severe credibility disadvantage and the accusatory nature of the reporter\u27s questions. This Note applies a false light invasion of privacy analysis to the ambush technique and examines the nexus between the technique and the goals of first amendment freedom of the press. It concludes that the ambush interview inherently creates false light invasions of privacy and is contrary to the fundamental goals of freedom of the press

An Accelerated History of Expressive Freedom

My purpose in writing this article is to examine the growth of Anglo-American speech rights over the past millennium. Since the best measure of expressive freedom is the freedom to criticize one\u27s government, I will focus on the regulation of seditious speech in an accelerated tour of history, from the printing press to the present day