In 1972, the Supreme Court in Stanley v. Illinois declared that parents are entitled to a hearing on their fitness before the state places their children in foster care, but for decades family courts would not apply this precedent to non-offending parents in child protection cases. Without even citing Stanley, courts held that finding one parent unfit justified taking the child into foster care -- even when the other parent was fit and sought custody. A Michigan Supreme Court decision this past summer, In re Sanders, suggests that courts are now, more than forty years after it was decided, beginning to apply Stanley to protect fit parents' and children's right to stay together.
In response to Ezra Rosser's article, The Ambition and Transformative Potential of Progressive Property, 101 Calif. L. Rev. 107 (2013), Timothy Mulvaney expresses more confidence than does Rosser in property's potential to serve a role in furthering a progressive society. If property is to serve in this role, however, Mulvaney suggests it is important to redesign and reinterpret property in accordance with three themes-transparency about property rules' value-dependence,humility about the reach of human knowledge and the mutability of our normative positions, and a concern for the socioeconomic identities of those affected by resource disputes-that underlie a broader set of writings than Rosser considers within the contours of "progressive property scholarship" and on which he offers some very preliminary impressions.
When is a Belief or Opinion False?: Indiana State District Council v. Omnicare and the Contested § 11 Pleading Standard
This Note analyzes an important question in securities law relating to the pleading standard under § 11 of the Securities Act of 1933. Last year, in Indiana State District Council v. Omnicare, the Sixth Circuit departed from several sister circuits by holding that a securities plaintiff need not allege that a belief or opinion was subjectively false to state a § 11 claim. The circuit split that emerged has attracted significant attention due to its implications for buyers and sellers in the capital markets, ultimately provoking the Supreme Court to grant certiorari to resolve the conflict. In advance of the Supreme Court's review, the Note argues that both doctrine and policy militate against the Sixth Circuit's approach.
NEWS & EVENTS
August 12, 2014Defining the Whistleblower Under Dodd-Frank: Who Decides?
Founded in 1912, CLR publishes six times per year on a variety of engaging topics in legal scholarship.
The law review is edited and published entirely by students at Berkeley Law.