Williams, Verna L.

Verna’s editorial entitled “Why not treat gun and abortion rights equally?” was published in the Cincinnati Enquirer.

Several of Verna’s articles were cited:

  • Reform or Retrenchment? Single-Sex Education and the Construction of Race and Gender, 2004 Wis. L. Rev. 15 (2004), in Ann C. McGinley & Frank Rudy Cooper, How Masculinities Distribute Power: The Influence of Ann Scales, 91 Denv. U. L. Rev. 187 (2013).
  • The Heart of the Game: Putting Race and Educational Equity at the Center of Title IX, 7 Va. Sports & Ent. L.J. 199 (2008) (with Deborah L. Brake), in Kenneth D. Ferguson, Achieving Gender Equity Under Title IX for Girls from Minority, Urban, Rural, and Economically Disadvantaged Communities, 24 Marq. Sports L. Rev. 353 (2014).
  • The First (Black) Lady, 86 Denv. U. L. Rev. 833 (2009), in Linda C. McClain, Federal Family Policy and Family Values from Clinton to Obama, 1992–2012 and Beyond, 2013 Mich. St. L. Rev. 1621.
  • Social Justice Feminism, 18 UCLA Women’s L.J. 131 (2010) (with Kristin Kalsem), in Deborah L. Brake & Joanna L. Grossman, Unprotected Sex: The Pregnancy Discrimination Act at 35, 21 Duke J. Gender L. & Pol’y 67 (2013); Kathleen Kelly Janus, Finding Common Feminist Ground: The Role of the Next Generation in Shaping Feminist Legal Theory, 20 Duke J. Gender L. & Pol’y 255 (2013).

Vázquez, Yolanda

Yolanda’s reappointment as Assistant Professor of Law was approved by the Provost.

Yolanda’s article, Maintaining the Subordination of Latinos in a Post-Racial World Through Crimmigration, will be published in the Ohio State Law Journal.

Several of Yolanda’s articles were cited:

Tomain, Joseph P.

Joe published:

  • Energy Law and Policy (West Publishing, 2014) (with Lincoln L. Davies, Alexandra B. Klass, Hari M. Orsofsky, and Elizabeth J. Wilson)
  • Achieving Democracy: The Future of Progressive Regulation (paperback edition, Oxford University Press 2014, with Shapiro).
  • Traditionally Structured Electric Utilities in a Distributed Generation World, 38 Nova L. Rev. 473 (2014).
  • Reading Poets, 87 St. John’s L. Rev. 1051 (2013).

 
Several of Joe’s books and publications were cited:

  • Energy Law and Policy (1989) (with James E. Hickey, Jr. and Sheila S. Hollis), in H. Brendan Burke, Dynamic Federalism and Wind Farm Siting, 16 N.C. J. L. & Tech. 1 (2014).
  • Regulatory Law and Policy: Cases and Materials (3d. ed. 2003) (with Sidney A. Shapiro), in Yoon-Ho Alex Lee, An Options Approach to Agency Rulemaking, 65 Admin. L. Rev. 881 (2013).
  • Energy Law in a Nutshell (2004) (with Richard D. Cudahy), in Kevin Decker, Comment, Allocating Power: Toward a New Federalism Balance for Electricity Transmission Siting, 66 Me. L. Rev. 229 (2013); Amy L. Stein, Renewable Energy Through Agency Action, 84 U. Colo. L. Rev. 651 (2013).
  • Ending Dirty Energy Policy: Prelude to Climate Change (2011), in William Boyd, Public Utility and the Low-Carbon Future, 61 UCLA L. Rev. 1614 (2014); Andrew Long, Complexity in Global Energy-Environment Governance, 15 Minn. J.L. Sci. & Tech. 1055 (2014); Inara Scott, Teaching an Old Dog New Tricks: Adapting Public Utility Commissions to Meet Twenty-First Century Climate Challenges, 38 Harv. Envtl. L. Rev. 371 (2014); Erik Lange, Note, Local Control of Emerging Energy Sources: A Due Process Challenge to Disparate Treatment by States, 64 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 619 (2013).
  • Skills Skepticism in the Postclinic World, 40 J. Legal Ed. 307 (1990) (with Michael E. Solimine), in Robert J. Condlin, “Practice Ready Graduates”: A Millennialist Fantasy, 31 Touro L. Rev. 75 (2014).
  • Analyzing Government Regulation, 49 Admin. L. Rev. 377 (1997) (with Sidney A. Shapiro), in Sarah Gruber, Note, Trust, Identity, and Disclosure: Are Bitcoin Exchanges the Next Virtual Haven for Money Laundering and Tax Evasion?, 32 Quinnipiac L. Rev. 135 (2013).
  • Rethinking Reform of Electricity Markets, 40 Wake Forest L. Rev. 497 (2005) (with Sidney A. Shapiro), in Matthew Struhar, How to Dismantle a Virtual Cartel: The Promises and Pitfalls of Higher Education Reform in California, 14 U.C. Davis Bus. L.J. 127 (2013).
  • ‘‘Our Generation’s Sputnik Moment”: Regulating Energy Innovation, 31 Utah Envtl. L. Rev. 389 (2011), in Albert C. Lin, Lessons From the Past for Assessing Energy Technologies for the Future, 61 UCLA L. Rev. 1814 (2014).
  • The Politics of Clean Energy: Moving Beyond the Beltway, 3 San Diego J. Climate & Energy L. 299 (2012), in Antoine C. Schellinger, Energy is Energy: Segregation of Renewable and Fossil Fuels Impedes Energy Security Goals, 55 S. Tex. L. Rev. 471 (2014).
  • Shale Gas and Clean Energy Policy, 63 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 1187 (2013), in Antoine C. Schellinger, Energy is Energy: Segregation of Renewable and Fossil Fuels Impedes Energy Security Goals, 55 S. Tex. L. Rev. 471 (2014); Erik Lange, Note, Local Control of Emerging Energy Sources: A Due Process Challenge to Disparate Treatment by States, 64 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 619 (2013).
  • Working Paper, ABA Task Force on the Future of Legal Education (Aug. 1, 2013), in James R. Holbrook, Reflections on the Future of Legal Education, 2014 Utah L. Rev. OnLaw 53; Jay Sterling Silver, Pedagogically Sound Cuts, Tighter (Not Looser) Accreditation Standards, and a Well-Oiled Doomsday Machine: The Responsible Way Out of the Crisis in Legal Education, 66 Rutgers L. Rev. 353 (2014).
  • Traditionally Structured Electric Utilities in a Distributed Generation World, 38 Nova L. Rev. 473 (2014), in Joel B. Eisen, An Open Access Distribution Tariff: Removing Barriers to Innovation on the Smart Grid, 61 UCLA L. Rev. 1712 (2014).

Sperino, Sandra F.

Sandra accepted a book contract with Oxford University Press.  The book, co-authored with Professor Suja Thomas, will discuss employment discrimination and will be published in 2017.

Sandra published:

 
She also served as a contributing editor on four books: Covenants Not to Compete; Trade secrets, A State-by-State Survey; Employee Duty of Loyalty; and Tortious Interference in the Employment Context.

Sandra completed two articles. Her forthcoming article “Retaliation and the Reasonable Person” was presented in September at the Colloquium on Current Scholarship in Labor and Employment Law, University of Colorado Law School. She also completed an article, “The Civil Rights Restatement,” which she will present at the 2015 Clifford Symposium on Tort Law and Social Policy.

The Iowa Supreme Court cited two of Professor Sperino’s articles in its recent decisions in Pippen v. State, 854 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 2014), and Goodpaster v. Schwan’s Home Service, Inc., 849 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 2014).  In both cases, the Iowa Supreme Court decided whether it should interpret the Iowa Civil Rights Act to be consistent with federal law.  The Court used Professor’s Sperino’s work to support its conclusion that Iowa state law should be interpreted independently from federal law.

She was quoted in the August 4, 2014 Washington Post article “For whistleblowers, a bold move can be followed by one to department basement.” Professor Sperino was part of the labor-management joint committee that successfully negotiated a new paid parental leave policy for AAUP faculty at the University of Cincinnati. She continues to blog about complex employment discrimination at the Friend of the Court blog, available at http://friendofthecourtblog.wordpress.com.

Several of Sandra’s books and articles were cited:

  • Employment Discrimination: A Context and Practice Casebook (2011) (with Jarod S. Gonzalez), in Nicole Buonocore Porter, A Proposal to Improve the Workplace Law Curriculum From a Corporate Compliance Perspective, 58 St. Louis U. L.J. 155 (2013).
  • Chaos Theory: The Unintended Consequences of Expanding Individual Liability Under the Family and Medical Leave Act, 9 Emp. Rts. & Emp. Pol’y J. 175 (2005), in Nicole Buonocore Porter, Finding a Fix for the FMLA: A New Perspective, A New Solution, 31 Hofstra Lab. & Emp. L.J. 327 (2014).
  • Flying without a Statutory Basis: Why McDonnell Douglas Is Not Justified by Any Statutory Construction Methodology, 43 Hous. L. Rev. 743 (2006), in Laraclay Parker, Note, 4% Absent = 100% Disaster: Why the Math Doesn’t Add Up on Fixed Attendance Leave Policies Under the FMLA, 102 Ky. L.J. 1051 (2013–2014).
  • Recreating Diversity in Employment Law by Debunking the Myth of the McDonnell Douglas Monolith, 44 Hous. L. Rev. 349 (2007), in Daniel Lewallen, Note, Follow the Leader: Why All States Should Remove Minimum Employee Thresholds in Antidiscrimination Statutes, 47 Ind. L. Rev. 817 (2014); Christopher C. Lund, Free Exercise Reconceived: The Logic and Limits of Hosanna-Tabor, 108 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1183 (2014).
  • Judicial Preemption of Punitive Damages, 78 U. Cin. L. Rev. 227 (2009), in Lynn Ridgeway Zehrt, Twenty Years of Compromise: How the Caps on Damages in the Civil Rights Act of 1991 Codified Sex Discrimination, 25 Yale J.L. & Feminism 249 (2014).
  • A Modern Theory of Direct Corporate Liability for Title VII, 61 Ala. L. Rev. 773 (2010), in Samuel R. Bagenstos, Formalism and Employer Liability Under Title VII, 2014 U. Chi. Legal F. 145; Rachel Arnow-Richman, Employment Law Inside Out: Using the Problem Method to Teach Workplace Law, 58 St. Louis U. L.J. 29 (2013).
  • The New Calculus of Punitive Damages for Employment Discrimination Cases, 62 Okla. L. Rev. 701 (2010), in Lynn Ridgeway Zehrt, Twenty Years of Compromise: How the Caps on Damages in the Civil Rights Act of 1991 Codified Sex Discrimination, 25 Yale J.L. & Feminism 249 (2014).
  • Rethinking Discrimination Law, 110 Mich. L. Rev. 69 (2011), in In re Fordham v. Fannie Mae, 2014 WL 5511070 (ARB 2014); Andrea Giampetro-Meyer, The Proper Place for Intellectual Property in Employment Discrimination Law, 25 Geo. Mason U. Civ. Rts. L.J. 1 (2014); David W. Fujimoto, Student Author, Thrown Under the Bus: Victims of Workplace Discrimination After Harris, 48 U.S.F. L. Rev. 111 (2013); Christine Tsang, Comment, Uncovering Systemic Discrimination: Allowing Individual Challenges to a “Pattern or Practice”, 32 Yale L. & Pol’y Rev. 319 (2013).
  • Discrimination Statutes, the Common Law, and Proximate Cause, 2013 U. Ill. L. Rev. 1 (2013), in Steven Curry, Note. After University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, Another Call to Congress to Restore Title VII’s Protections, 2014 Wis. L. Rev. 1001; August T. Johannsen, Note, Mitigating the Impact of Title VII’s New Retaliation Standard: The Americans With Disabilities Act After University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, 56 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 301 (2014); Eric Rosoff, Note, Disparate Treatment of Disparate Treatment: Harmonizing Title VII Pretext and Mixed-Motive Jury Instruction Causation Standards in Light of Staub v. Memorial Hospital, 35 Cardozo L. Rev. 2079 (2014); William Lynch Schaller, Corporate Opportunities and the Third Party “Refusal to Deal” Defense: Policy and Practice Lessons from Illinois, 47 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1 (2013).
  • Litigating the FMLA in the Shadow of Title VII, 8 FIU L. Rev. 501 (2013), in Jonathan M. Graham, HIV, High School, and Human Rights: Putting Faces on the Failure to Protect HIV+ Youth from Bullying and Discrimination at School, 35 U. La Verne L. Rev. 267 (2014).
  • Revitalizing State Employment Discrimination Law, 20 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 545 (2013), in Elizabeth Rodd, Note, Light, Smoke, and Fire: How State Law Can Provide Medical Marijuana Users Protection from Workplace Discrimination, 55 B.C. L. Rev. 1759 (2014).
  • Fakers and Floodgates, 10 Stan. J. Civ. Rts. & Civ. Liberties 223 (2014) (with Suja A. Thomas), in William B. Gould IV, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act at Fifty: Ruminations on Past, Present, and Future, 54 Santa Clara L. Rev. 369 (2014).
  • The Tort Label, 66 Fla. L. Rev. 1051 (2014), in August T. Johannsen, Note, Mitigating the Impact of Title VII’s New Retaliation Standard: The Americans With Disabilities Act After University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, 56 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 301 (2014); Michael J. Zimmer, Hiding the Statute in Plain View: University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, 14 Nev. L.J. 705 (2014).

 
Several of Professor Sperino’s works on the disconnect between tort and discrimination law were cited in articles published by the Ohio State Law Journal as part of its symposium “Torts and Civil Rights Law: Migration and Conflict.”

Solimine, Michael E.

Michael published:

 
Michael was quoted in a news article on election law and third parties in Sean Myers, “Don’t Like Kasich or Fitzgerald? Ohio Ballot Will Have 3rd Option for Governor,” Cincinnati Enquirer, Oct. 25, 2014.

Several of Michael’s books and articles were cited:

  • Respecting State Courts: The Inevitability of Judicial Federalism (1999) (with James L. Walker), in Paul R. Gugliuzza, Patent Law Federalism, 2014 Wis. L. Rev. 11; Wayne A. Logan, A House Divided: When State and Lower Federal Courts Disagree on Federal Constitutional Rights, 90 Notre Dame L. Rev. 235 (2014).
  • Voting Rights and Election Law (2010) (with Michael Dimino and Bradley Smith), in Nicholas O. Stephanopolous, Teaching Election Law, 13 Election L.J. 447 (2014); David Schultz, The State of Democracy in North Dakota, 89 N.D. L. Rev. 371 (2013).
  • Newsmagazine Coverage of the Supreme Court, 57 Journalism Q. 661 (1980), in RonNell Anderson Jones, Media Politicization of the United States Supreme Court, 4 Oñati Socio-Legal Ser. 613 (2014).
  • Constitutional Litigation in Federal and State Courts: An Empirical Analysis of Judicial Parity, 10 Hastings Const. L.Q. 213 (1983) (with James L. Walker), in Dustin E. Buehler, Solving Jurisdiction’s Social Cost, 89 Wash. L. Rev. 653 (2014); Brooke D. Coleman, Civil-izing Federalism, 89 Tul. L. Rev. 307 (2014).
  • Ideology and En Banc Review, 67 N.C. L. Rev. 29 (1988), in Jennifer Barnes Bowie, et al., The View from the Bench and Chambers: Examining Judicial Process and Decision Making on the U.S. Courts of Appeals (U. Va. Press 2014).
  • An Economic and Empirical Analysis of Choice of Law, 24 Ga. L. Rev. 49 (1989), in Mark Thomson, Method or Madness?: The Leflar Approach to Choice of Law as Practiced in Five States, 66 Rutgers L. Rev. 81 (2013).
  • Revitalizing Interlocutory Review in the Federal Courts, 58 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1165 (1990), in Dustin E. Buehler, Solving Jurisdiction’s Social Cost, 89 Wash. L. Rev. 653 (2014); Ana Matanzo Vicens & Rocío de Félix Dávila, Derecho Procesal Civil, 82 Rev. Jur. U.P.R. 309 (2013).
  • Skills Skepticism in the Postclinic World, 40 J. Legal Ed. 307 (1990) (with Joseph P. Tomain), in Robert J. Condlin, “Practice Ready Graduates”: A Millennialist Fantasy, 31 Touro L. Rev. 75 (2014).
  • Rethinking Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction, 52 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 383 (1991), in Paul R. Gugliuzza, Patent Law Federalism, 2014 Wis. L. Rev. 11.
  • Choice of Law in the American Courts in 1991, 40 Am. J. Comp. L. 951 (1992), in Symeon C. Symeonides, Choice of Law in the American Courts in 2013: Twenty-Seventh Annual Survey, 62 Am. J. Comp. L. 223 (2014).
  • Forum-Selection Clauses and the Privatization of Procedure, 25 Cornell Int’l L.J. 51 (1992), in Gerhard Wagner, The Dispute Resolution Market, 62 Buff. L. Rev. 1085 (2014); Monika L. Woodward, Comment, Ghosts Have Rights Too! A New Era in Contractual Rights: Third-Party Invocation in Forum-Selection Clauses, 26 St. Thomas L. Rev. 467 (2014).
  • The Next Word: Congressional Response to Supreme Court Statutory Decisions, 65 Temp. L. Rev. 425 (1992) (with James Walker), in Robert Katzmann, Judging Statutes (Oxford Univ. Press 2014).
  • Diluting Justice on Appeal?: An Analysis of the Use of District Judges Sitting by Designation on the United States Courts of Appeal, 28 U. Mich. J. L. Ref. 351 (1995) (with Richard Saphire), in Jonah J. Horwitz, Social Insecurity: A Modest Proposal for Remedying Federal District Court Inconsistency in Social Security Cases, 34 Pace L. Rev. 30 (2014).
  • The Three-Judge District Court in Voting Rights Litigation, 30 U. Mich. J.L. Ref. 79 (1996), in Jonah J. Horwitz, Social Insecurity: A Modest Proposal for Remedying Federal District Court Inconsistency in Social Security Cases, 34 Pace L. Rev. 30 (2014).
  • Judicial Reputation: A Citation Analysis of Federal Courts of Appeals Judges, 27 J. Legal Stud. 271 (1998) (with William Landes and Lawrence Lessig), in John S. Liu, et al., Citations with Different Levels of Relevancy: Tracing the Main Paths of Legal Opinions, 65 J. Assoc. Inform. Sci. & Tech. 2479 (2014).
  • The Quiet Revolution in Personal Jurisdiction, 73 Tul. L. Rev. 1 (1998), in S.I. Strong, Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in U.S. Courts: Problems and Possibilities, 33 Rev. Litig. 45 (2014).
  • Deciding to Decide: Class Action Certification and Interlocutory Review by the United States Courts of Appeals Under Rule 23(f), 41 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1531 (2000) (with Christine Oliver Hines), in Dustin E. Buehler, Solving Jurisdiction’s Social Cost, 89 Wash. L. Rev. 653 (2014).
  • Supreme Court Monitoring of the United States Courts of Appeals En Banc, 9 Sup. Ct. Econ. Rev. 171 (2001) (with Tracey E. George), in Jennifer Barnes Bowie et al., The View from the Bench and Chambers: Examining Judicial Process and Decision Making on the U.S. Courts of Appeals (U. Va. Press 2014); Kirk A. Randazzo & Richard W. Waterman, Checking the Courts: Law, Ideology and Contingent Discretion (SUNY Press 2014); Hope Babcock, How the Supreme Court Uses the Certiorari Process in the Ninth Circuit to Further its Pro-Business Agenda: A Strange Pas de Deux With an Unfortunate Coda, 41 Ecology L.Q. 653 (2014).
  • The False Promise of Judicial Elections in Ohio, 30 Cap. U. L. Rev. 559 (2002), in Ohio Council 8 v. Brunner, 24 F. Supp. 3d 680 (S.D. Ohio 2014).
  • The Law and Economics of Conflict of Laws, 4 Am. L. Econ. Rev. 208 (2002), in Shaun Larcom, Problematic Legal Pluralism: Causes and  Some Potential “Cures,” 46 J. Legal Pluralism & Unofficial L. 193 (2014).
  • Supreme Court Monitoring of State Courts in the Twenty-First Century, 35 Ind. L. Rev. 335 (2002), in Wayne A. Logan, A House Divided: When State and Lower Federal Courts Disagree on Federal Constitutional Rights, 90 Notre Dame L. Rev. 235 (2014); Ryan D. Walters, Fragmenting the Judiciary: Shifting Implementation of Supreme Court Doctrine from Federal Courts to State Courts, 42 Cap. U. L. Rev. 951 (2014); Jack L. Landau, Do Precedents Take Precedence? Stare Decisis and Oregon Constitutionalism, 77 Alb. L. Rev. 1347 (2013–2014); Jason Mazzone, The Rise and Fall of Human Rights: A Skeptical Account of Multilevel Governance, 3 Cambridge J. Int’l & Comp. L. 929 (2014); Jeffrey Omar Usman, Constitutional Constraints on Retroactive Civil Legislation: The Hollow Promises of the Federal Constitution and Unrealized Potential of State Constitutions, 14 Nev. L.J. 63 (2013); Ernest A. Young, A General Defense of Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 10 J.L. Econ. & Pol’y 17 (2013).
  • The Selection of Judges in Ohio, in 1 The History of Ohio Law (Michael Les Benedict & John F. Winkler eds., 2004) (with Richard B. Saphire), in David M. Gold, Judicial Elections and Judicial Review: Testing the Shugerman Thesis, 40 Ohio N.U. L. Rev. 39 (2013).
  • The Future of Parity, 46 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1457 (2005), in Brandon Byers, Case Note, Federal Question Jurisdiction and Indian Tribes: The Second Circuit Closes the Courthouse Doors in New York v. Shinnecock Indian Nation, 82 U. Cin. L. Rev. 901 (2014).
  • Judicial Stratification and the Reputations of the United States Courts of Appeals, 32 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 1331 (2005), in Jonathan Remy Nash, Expertise and Opinion Assignment on the Courts of Appeals: A Preliminary Investigation, 66 Fla. L. Rev. 1599 (2014).
  • The Supreme Court and the DIG: An Empirical and Institutional Analysis, 2005 Wis. L. Rev. 1421 (with Rafael Gely), in John S. Haddock, Note, Articulating a “Rational Connection” Requirement in Article III Standing, 66 Stan. L. Rev. 1423 (2014); Daniel J. Knudsen, Institutional Stress and the Federal District Courts: Judicial Emergencies, Vertical Norms, and Pretrial Dismissals, 2014 Utah L. Rev. 187.
  • Congress, Ex parte Young, and the Fate of the Three-Judge District Court, 70 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 101 (2008), in 2014 Supplement to Richard H. Fallon, Jr., et al., Hart and Wechsler’s The Federal Courts and the Federal System (Foundation Press 6th ed. 2009).
  • Congress, Separation of Powers, and Standing, 59 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 1023 (2009), in Bradford C. Mank, Clapper v. Amnesty International: Two or Three Competing Philosophies of Standing Law?, 81 Tenn. L. Rev. 211 (2014); Bradford C. Mank, No Article III Standing for Private Plaintiffs Challenging State Greenhouse Gas Regulations: The Ninth Circuit’s Decision in Washington Environmental Council v. Bellon, 63 Am. U. L. Rev. 1525 (2014).
  • The Supreme Court and the Sophisticated Use of DIGs, 18 Sup. Ct. Econ. Rev. 155 (2010) (with Rafael Gely), in 2014 Supplement to Richard H. Fallon, Jr., et al., Hart and Wechsler’s The Federal Courts and the Federal System (Foundation Press 6th ed. 2009).
  • State Amici, Collective Action, and the Development of Federalism Doctrine, 46 Ga. L. Rev. 355 (2012), in Brandon D. Harper, Comment, The Effectiveness of State-Filed Amicus Briefs at the United States Supreme Court, 16 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 1503 (2014).
  • The Solicitor General Unbound: Amicus Curiae Activism and Deference in the Supreme Court, 45 Ariz. St. L.J. 1183 (2013), in Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl, Following Lower-Court Precedent, 81 U. Chi. L. Rev. 851 (2014); Sandra F. Sperino & Suja A. Thomas, Fakers and Floodgates, 10 Stan. J. Civ. Rts. & Civ. Liberties 223 (2014).

Schneider, Ronna Greff

Several of Ronna’s books and articles were cited:

  • Education Law: First Amendment, Due Process and Discrimination Litigation (2004), in Laura Houser Oblinger, Note, The Wild, Wild West of Higher Education: Keeping the Campus Carry Decision in the University’s Holster, 53 Washburn L.J. 87 (2013); Lily M. Strumwasser, Testing the Social Media Waters: First Amendment Entanglement Beyond the Schoolhouse Gates, 36 Campbell L. Rev. 1 (2013).
  • State Action—Making Sense Out of Chaos—An Historical Approach, 37 Fla. L. Rev. 737 (1985), in Michael Deshmukh, Note, Is FINRA a State Actor? A Question that Exposes the Flaws of the State Action Doctrine and Suggests a Way to Redeem It, 67 Vand. L. Rev. 1173 (2014).
  • Sexual Harassment and Higher Education, 65 Tex. L. Rev. 525 (1986), in Katelyn Burch Busby, Note, Education—Student-Teacher Relationship—Should Teachers Be Held to a Higher Standard? Understanding the Laws Governing Sexual Relationships Between Students and Teachers in Primary and Secondary Schools—Paschal v. State, 2012 Ark. 127, 388 S.W.2d 479, 36 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 103 (2013).

Oliver, Nancy

Associate Dean Nancy Oliver joined the Alliance for Experiential Learning after attending their second national conference held at Elon University.

She participated in a workshop on Professional Formation sponsored by the Holloran Center for Ethical Leadership in the Profession.  Ideas generated at these workshops by the UC College of Law participants were used during orientation week in August.

Nancy also participated in a meeting at the CDC in Atlanta, Georgia about identifying and treating sepsis. She also visited the University of Canterbury in Christchurch, New Zealand to discuss restarting our student exchange program and other collaborations.  She also visited the University of Auckland in New Zealand and the University of Sydney and the Office of Education USA in Australia to discuss possible student exchange programs and the College’s LL.M. program.

Moore, Janet

Janet’s reappointment as Assistant Professor of Law was approved by the Provost.

Janet published:

 
In August, Janet presented her work in progress entitled The Duty to Communicate at an annual conference for Chief Public Defenders from across the country, and served as a small-group facilitator for chief defenders dealing with the constitutional and ethical challenges raised by excessive defender workloads. Her paper Participatory Defense, a revised and expanded version of The Duty to Communicate co-authored with social scientist Marla Sandys and community organizer Raj Jayadev, will be published as an invited article in a forthcoming Albany Law Review symposium edition on indigent defense research.

Janet’s article Unnoticed, Untapped, and Underappreciated: Clients’ Perceptions of their Public Defenders, co-authored with Christopher Campbell and other social scientists at Washington State University, will be published in Behavioral Sciences & the Law.

She also also accepted invitations and began contributing as an expert on a number of national indigent defense reform projects.

  • Janet was invited to join the Systems Evaluation Project led by the research division of North Carolina’s Indigent Defense Services system with funding assistance provided through the National Legal Aid and Defender Association. This project is the first in the nation to define and empirically test key performance indicators for quality indigent defense services.
  • She also joined the National Right to Counsel initiative sponsored by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers with support from the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance.  This project focuses on improving performance standards and training for indigent defense service providers.
  • Invited Expert, Indigent Defense Advisory Group, American Bar Association, Chicago, IL (assessing and promoting opportunities for nationwide indigent defense reform)
  • Invited Expert, Steering Committee, National Association for Public Defense (virtual grassroots organization of defenders and defender leaders dedicated to   nationwide indigent defense reform)
  • Co-convenor, Indigent Defense Research Association (virtual organization of researchers focusing on empirical analysis of indigent defense systems)

 
Janet delivered several other presentations during the fall:

  • Selected presenter, Unnoticed, Untapped, and Underappreciated: Clients’ Perceptions of their Public Defenders, Behav. Sci. & L. (co-authored article forthcoming 2015), American Society of Criminology Conference, San Francisco, California, Nov. 21, 2014.
  • Selected presenter, The Impoverished Sixth Amendment, Constitutional Law Colloquium, Loyola University-Chicago School of Law, Nov. 7–8, 2014.
  • Democracy Enhancement and the Sixth Amendment Right to Choose, University of Kentucky College of Law junior faculty workshop, Oct. 31, 2014.
  • Invited Presenter, The Duty to Communicate, Conference of Chief Defenders, Lexington, Kentucky, Aug. 20, 2014.

 
Janet’s article Democracy and Criminal Discovery Reform After Connick and Garcetti, 77 Brook. L. Rev. 1329 (2012), was cited in Daniel Richman, Framing the Prosecution, 87 S. Cal. L. Rev. 673 (2014); Margaret Tarkington, Lost in the Compromise: Free Speech, Criminal Justice, and Attorney Pretrial Publicity, 66 Fla. L. Rev. 1873 (2014); and H. Mitchell Caldwell, The Prosecutor Prince: Misconduct, Accountability, and a Modest Proposal, 63 Cath. U. L. Rev. 51 (2013).

Mickles, Kenyatta

Kenyatta’s promotion to Associate Professor of Clinical Law became effective in August.

The Court of Appeals of Ohio, First District issued a decision in an important case prepared by students in the Domestic Violence and Civil Protection Order clinic. In Parker v. Parker, 2014-Ohio-5516, the Court of Appeals reversed a decision by the Court of Common Pleas that a petitioner’s initiation of divorce proceedings limited the duration of a civil protection order against the petitioner’s husband to one year, instead of the five years requested.  As there is very little case law on this issue, this decision is likely to be used in similar cases across the country.