Martin Luther King Jr. Day Closure

The Law Library will be closed Monday, Jan. 20 for Martin Luther King Jr. Day. Law students and faculty will have their usual 24/7 access; however, circulation and reference services will not be available, and the Law Library will not be open to non-law students, faculty, or the public.

Research Instruction

Wednesday, Jan. 22, 2020

• Prof. McCord’s Lawyering II, Section 2
  • Associate Dean of Library Services & Director of the Law Library Michael Whiteman will be working with section 2 on Advanced Searching Techniques
  • 10:40am – 12:05pm
  • Room 100B
• Advanced Legal Research
  • Associate Dean of Library Services & Director of the Law Library Michael Whiteman, Associate Director Susan Boland, and Electronic Resources & Instructional Services Librarian Ron Jones
  • 3:05pm – 4:30pm
  • Room 104
• Prof. McCord’s Lawyering II, Section 4
  • Legal Technology & Research Instructional Services Librarian Shannon Kemen will be working with section 4 on Advanced Searching Techniques
  • 3:05pm – 4:30pm
  • Room 100A

Thursday, Jan. 23, 2020

• Prof. Smith’s Lawyering II, Section 6
  • Associate Director Susan Boland will be working with section 6 on Federal Law Research
  • 9:00am – 10:30am
  • Room 100B
• Prof. Lenhart’s Lawyering II, Section 1
  • Associate Director Susan Boland will be working with section 1 on Federal Law Research
  • 1:30pm – 2:55pm
  • Room 100B

Spring Into a New Year with Study Aid Resources

Spring into a new year with the Law Library study aid resources! The LexisNexis Digital Library (OverDrive collection) has undergone a complete redesign. You can still access the classic design at any time, but the new design implements features to make the study aids easier to use. When you access the current LexisNexis Digital Library site you will get a prompt to “Try the improved LexisNexis Digital Library!” You can click to try it or continue using the classic site. Any notes taken will remain on the classic site for now but later this year, any notes on the classic site will be migrated to the new one. Among the enhancements on the new site:

• Accessing the study aids will be streamlined. You won’t have to check out materials any more.
• Your digital library eBooks will be available with or without an internet connection. Once you download the app, you’ll be able to access study aids offline.
• You’ll be able to organize and sync your annotations and highlights across sessions and devices.
• Your home page will populate recently read eBooks and your personal annotations and tags.

You can find all of our study aids by subject on the Exam Study Guide.

If accessing the online study aids from the West Academic subscription on-campus (either connected to Secure Wireless or on a networked computer), you can just click on the links on the Exam Study Guide or go to the West Academic subscription page. If you want to be able to access them from off-campus, create a West Academic account. To create an account, click the Create an Account link at the top right corner of the Study Aids Subscription page. Use your UC email as the email address. Once you have filled in the required information to set up an account, you will need to verify your email address (they will send you a confirmation email that you will need answer to verify the email address).

If accessing study aids from the LexisNexis Digital Library (OverDrive), you will need to login using your UC credentials. Under the classic interface the study aids check out for 3 days, but you can check them out as many times as you want. On the new site, you won’t need to check them out anymore but can go directly to the study aid.

If using CALI, you will need to create an account (if you have not already done so) using a Cincinnati Law authorization code. You can obtain this code from a reference librarian.

January Arguments at the United States Supreme Court

From SCOTUS Blog:

Monday, Jan. 13, 2020

• Lucky Brand Dungarees v. Marcel Fashions Group – whether, when a plaintiff asserts new claims, a defendant can raise defenses that were not actually litigated and resolved in any prior cases between the parties.
  • Oral Argument Transcript
• Thole v. U.S. Bank, N.A. – whether an ERISA plan participant or beneficiary may seek injunctive relief against fiduciary misconduct under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3) without demonstrating individual financial loss or the imminent risk thereof; (2) whether an ERISA plan participant or beneficiary may seek restoration of plan losses caused by fiduciary breach under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(2) without demonstrating individual financial loss or the imminent risk thereof; and (3) whether petitioners have demonstrated Article III standing.
  • Oral Argument Transcript

Tuesday, Jan. 14, 2020

• Kelly v. United States – whether a public official “defraud[s]” the government of its property by advancing a “public policy reason” for an official decision that is not her subjective “real reason” for making the decision.
  • Oral Argument Transcript
• Romag Fasteners Inc. v. Fossil Inc. – whether, under Section 35 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), willful infringement is a prerequisite for an award of an infringer’s profits for a violation of Section 43(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).
  • Oral Argument Transcript

Wednesday, Jan. 15, 2020

• Babb v. Wilkie – whether the federal-sector provision of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, which provides that personnel actions affecting agency employees aged 40 years or older shall be made free from any “discrimination based on age,” 29 U.S.C. § 633a(a), requires a plaintiff to prove that age was a but-for cause of the challenged personnel action.

Tuesday, Jan. 22, 2020

• Shular v. United States – whether the determination of a “serious drug offense” under the Armed Career Criminal Act requires the same categorical approach used in the determination of a “violent felony” under the act.
• GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS v. Outokumpu Stainless USA LLC – whether the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards permits a nonsignatory to an arbitration agreement to compel arbitration based on the doctrine of equitable estoppel.

Wednesday, Jan. 23, 2020

• Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue – whether it violates the religion clauses or the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution to invalidate a generally available and religiously neutral student-aid program simply because the program affords students the choice of attending religious schools.