Recap: \u3cem\u3eState of Montana v. James Morris Colburn\u3c/em\u3e; When the Sole Defense is Precluded by Montana’s Rape Shield Law

Did application of Montana’s rape shield law, excluding evidence of the victim’s motive to fabricate and source of sexual knowledge, violate the Defendant’s constitutional right to present a complete defense

Irreplaceability and Unique Value

This essay begins with a consideration of one way in which animals and persons may be valued as “irreplaceable.” Drawing on both Plato and Pascal, I consider reasons for skepticism regarding the legitimacy of this sort of attachment. While I do not offer a complete defense against such skepticism, I do show that worries here may be overblown due to the conflation of distinct metaphysical and normative concerns. I then go on to clarify what sort of value is at issue in cases of irreplaceable attachment. I characterize “unique value” as the kind of value attributed to a thing when we take that thing to be (theoretically, not just practically) irreplaceable. I then consider the relationship between this sort of value and intrinsic value. After considering the positions of Gowans, Moore, Korsgaard, Frankfurt, and others, I conclude that unique value is best understood not as a variety of intrinsic value but rather as one kind of final value that is grounded in the extrinsic properties of the object

Constitutional Law - Self-Incrimination

An accused gambler\u27s claim of constitutional privilege against self-incrimination provides a complete defense to federal prosecution for violation of federal tax statutes requiring gamblers to pay excise and occupational taxes. Marchetti v. United States, 88 S. Ct. 697 (1968). Grosso v. United States, 88 S. Ct. 709 (1968)

Contributory Negligence in Medical Malpractice

The best and most complete defense to a charge of malpractice is the allegation and proof of the absence of negligence. It is also the most often used defense. Of the less popular defenses, contributory negligence on the part of the patient is probably the least attractive and the most difficult to maintain, even though it has been held to be a complete bar to recovery in several cases difficult to categorize

\u27If I Knew Then What I Know Now\u27: The Role of After-Acquired Evidence in Employment Discrimination Cases: An Analysis of McKennon v. Nashville Banner

This article previews the Supreme Court case McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publishing Company, 513 U.S. 352 (1995). The author expected the Court to address whether after acquired evidence of employee misconduct is a complete defense for an employer\u27s termination decision which would otherwise violate the Age Discrimination in Employment Act or is it relevant only to the scope of the remedy afforded to an employee terminated in violation of the Act

Contributory Negligence in Medical Malpractice

The best and most complete defense to a charge of malpractice is the allegation and proof of the absence of negligence. It is also the most often used defense. Of the less popular defenses, contributory negligence on the part of the patient is probably the least attractive and the most difficult to maintain, even though it has been held to be a complete bar to recovery in several cases difficult to categorize

Knight v. Jewett: Reasonable Implied Assumption of Risk as a Complete Defense in Sports Injury Cases

The Casenote addresses the question: who is responsible when a participant in a sport is injured during play? The author discusses the uncertainty surrounding the legal answer to this question in California. Knight v. Jewett, a California Court of Appeals case decided in 1991, applied the doctrine of reasonable implied assumption of risk to hold that the player himself assumed the risk and was thus responsible for his own injury. This Casenote examines the controversy surrounding reasonable implied assumption of risk, and reviews the divergence of opinion among California appellate courts and commentators. The author discusses the likely outcome of the controversy, and recommends how the California Supreme Court should resolve the issue