3,467 research outputs found
A Call for a Value-Based Test of Commercial Speech
This Article reviews the cases that attempt to define commercial speech, as well as cases that indicate the normative values supporting the creation and continuance of the commercial speech doctrine. These and other cases will be analyzed to determine the normative values that may have led to the development of the commercial speech doctrine. This Article concludes that the Court should not develop a test of commerciality until it more fully articulates these underlying values. To illustrate the need for normative development, this concluding section focuses on Dun & Bradstreet v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc
\u3ci\u3ePrima Paint\u3c/i\u3e Pushed Compulsory Arbitration Under the \u3ci\u3eErie\u3c/i\u3e Train
Regulating the disposal of cigarette butts as toxic hazardous waste
The trillions of cigarette butts generated each year throughout the world pose a significant challenge for disposal regulations, primarily because there are millions of points of disposal, along with the necessity to segregate, collect and dispose of the butts in a safe manner, and cigarette butts are toxic, hazardous waste. There are some hazardous waste laws, such as those covering used tyres and automobile batteries, in which the retailer is responsible for the proper disposal of the waste, but most post-consumer waste disposal is the responsibility of the consumer. Concepts such as extended producer responsibility (EPR) are being used for some post-consumer waste to pass the responsibility and cost for recycling or disposal to the manufacturer of the product. In total, 32 states in the US have passed EPR laws covering auto switches, batteries, carpet, cell phones, electronics, fluorescent lighting, mercury thermostats, paint and pesticide containers, and these could be models for cigarette waste legislation. A broader concept of producer stewardship includes EPR, but adds the consumer and the retailer into the regulation. The State of Maine considered a comprehensive product stewardship law in 2010 that is a much better model than EPR. By using either EPR or the Maine model, the tobacco industry will be required to cover the cost of collecting and disposing of cigarette butt waste. Additional requirements included in the Maine model are needed for consumers and businesses to complete the network that will be necessary to maximise the segregation and collection of cigarette butts to protect the environment
\u27Prima Paint\u27 Pushed Compulsory Aribitration under the \u27Erie\u27 Train
As the face of commerce changes, the law usually follows, albeit at some distance. The United States Supreme Court has recently sped the pace. In a line of cases, some old, some recent, but all feeding off of one another, the Court has held that challenges to agreements which contain arbitration provisions must go to the arbitrator first. Courts may hear formational challenges only where they challenge the arbitration provision alone. In the Supreme Court, arbitration, with its vast potential for abuse as well as for good, has found a friend.
The Courtās doctrine of choice, āseverability,ā raises serious concerns for the hallmark decision, Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins. Erieās firm principle that federal courts may not (constitutionally) create a general federal common law is imperiled by the Courtās use of severability. A recent en banc decision from the Ninth Circuit, offered in the form of an engaging dialogue between a majority judge and a dissenting judge, demonstrates where the Supreme Court has gone awry and offers a fix. The solution offered is an Erie-based zone of deference for state contract law that both, is constitutional and respects the dictates of the Federal Arbitration Act.
MS Word format. Word Count, including notes, 19,38
\u3ci\u3ePrima Paint\u3c/i\u3e Pushed Compulsory Arbitration Under the \u3ci\u3eErie\u3c/i\u3e Train
- ā¦