Further evidence of the circulation of PMV-4 and influenza viruses with N2 - 1957 enzyme in migratory waterfowls

I n the years 1980—1984, one paramyxovirus type 4 and 11 influenza viruses were isolated from cloacal swabs collected from migratory waterfowls in Fed. Rep. Germany. One influenza virus of H4N8 subtype was isolated from swabs of commercial ducks collected at an abbatoir. Seven of 10 influenza strains, isolated from mallard clucks and coot were identified as a mixture of 2 —3 strains of H l , H4, and Ho subtype; 3 virus strains from the same locality relate antigenically to subtype H4 w i t h enzyme serologically identical with N2 — Singapore/57 as demonstrated by means of polyclonal and monoclonal antibody

Hostile Environment Actions, Title VII, and the ADA: The Limits of the Copy-and-Paste Function

Two federal circuits, borrowing from Title VII jurisprudence, recently recognized a cause of action for a disability-based hostile environment under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Neither opinion, however, considered how the analysis of a disability-based hostile environment claim under the ADA might differ from that of a race- or sex-based hostile environment claim under Title VII. This Article examines the differing theories of equality underlying the two statutes and argues that, because the statutes prohibit discrimination in fundamentally different ways, courts must resist the temptation to copy and paste Title VII doctrine into ADA hostile environment opinions. This Article instead suggests an analysis of ADA hostile environment actions that is consistent with the specific combination of theories underlying that statute

Writing in the Legal Academy: A Dangerous Supplement

This article explores the relationship of writing and speech in the legal academy through the lens of an ancient, embedded hierarchy that favors speech over writing. The article borrows the philosophical notion of the dangerous supplement to describe the role of writing in this hierarchy and argues that law schools have long seen only one aspect of this role, viewing writing as a dangerous curricular supplement, but failing to see why it is necessary to the existence of the remainder of the curriculum. This article examines the lurking distrust that surrounds writing in the legal academy. Part I of this article traces the historical roots of the speech/writing hierarchy and its insinuation into the legal curriculum. Part II discusses how deans and faculty in United States law schools have responded to and reinforced this hierarchy in their treatment of legal writing programs. This Part then uses the notion of the dangerous supplement to critique the hierarchy upon which institutional decisions in this area have been based. Part III analyzes the effect of the speech/writing hierarchy on writing pedagogy, specifically addressing common criticisms of legal writing as students experience it in the legal academy. Part IV looks to the future, assessing the possibility and ramifications of breaking out of the hierarchy. Overall, by exposing the deception embedded in the hierarchy, this article attempts to explain why the legal academy needs the dangerous supplement of legal writing

Old Habits: Sister Bernadette and the Potential Revival of Sentence Diagramming in Written Legal Advocacy

Given the rise of e-filing and of software that makes it easier than ever to create images and insert them into documents, the nearly lost art of sentence diagramming may be due for a revival in written legal advocacy. This article posits that while sentence diagrams can indeed, in a limited set of cases, add to the persuasive force of a statutory-interpretation argument, the diagrams themselves are less compelling than attorneys may believe them to be, and diagrams cannot elucidate all types of interpretive issues. Like an analogy, a sentence diagram can illustrate an argument aptly — or ineptly — and counsel’s ability to come up with an illustrative analogy or a diagram is no guarantee that the illustrated argument has merit. This article first explains the nature of sentence diagrams and then discusses their potential utility in briefs. It then describes two cases where the inclusion of diagrams in briefs was less useful, or even counterproductive. In closing, it offers some concrete advice to attorneys on the use of sentence diagrams in written legal advocacy