Event Title
McGeorge School of Law Student Research Showcase
Loading...
Document Type
Panel
Start Date
20-10-2020 4:00 PM
End Date
20-10-2020 5:00 PM
Description
Nico Chapman - Money for Nothing (I Want Publicity) - Amateurism is Dead and Fair Pay to Play Could be Next
Abstract: The United States Supreme Court gave the NCAA deferential treatment in antitrust litigation during the late 20th century, setting forth principles that the NCAA has relied upon in different litigation contexts. In the 1970's and 80's, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, men's basketball program saw enormous success under infamous coach Jerry Tarkanian. The NCAA investigated Coach Tarkanian and determined he violated many NCAA bylaws, and imposed harsh penalties against UNLV. In response, the state of Nevada enacted a law to require the NCAA follow certain due process requirements for their bylaw violations and investigations. The NCAA sued Nevada, and in Nat'l. Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Miller, the Ninth Circuit ruled in the NCAA's favor. Relying on principles from antitrust litigation, the Ninth Circuit held that the NCAA requires national uniformity in order to secure the integrity of its product. Thus, any state law that regulates the NCAA within that state, conflicting with the NCAA's bylaws, necessarily implicates the negative aspects of the Commerce Clause and is virtually per se unconstitutional. Since California is within the Ninth Circuit, Miller is binding precedent and would control litigation between the NCAA and California. The Fair Pay to Play Act required the NCAA to refrain from enforcing their amateurism bylaws in California, which interferes with the NCAA's uniformity requirements. Thus, the law is almost certainly unconstitutional. The article concludes by providing a method for California to successfully defend its law by attacking the underlying antitrust principles, which have weakened significantly over the previous decade. The justifications for amateurism are dead and should no longer preclude state efforts to protect its student-athletes.
Maddy Orlando - The Doctor Will See You Now: How the Opioid Crisis Changed the Standard of Care for Physicians in Medical Malpractice Suits
Abstract: In the past 20 years, opioid based drugs have fueled America's drug addiction epidemic. A large part of that is due to overprescribing and misprescribing of opioid based pain medications to patients through their physicians. Specifically my research looks to the standard of care element in medical malpractice cases and how the opioid crisis and subsequent knowledge about the potential dangers of these drugs has changed the way courts should judge physician conduct in cases involving opioid prescriptions. The standard of care should not be a single look to the act of prescribing itself, but rather a look at the entire physician-patient interaction to determine liability.
Mahemud Tekuya - Grand Ethiopian Renaissance
Abstract: For over five years, Ethiopia, Sudan, and Egypt have been conducting a series of negotiations over the filing and annual operation of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) but failed to strike a way forward deal acceptable to all of them. The recent involvement of the U.S. and World Bank in the negotiation further complicated the dispute and resulted in diplomatic crises. Although international and regional institutions, such as the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), the African Union (AU), and the European Union (EU), have already involved in the negotiations, three States have made no progress and yet to agree on several outstanding issues. This legal research argues that the colonial and 1959 Nile Treaties (colonial Nile Waters Treaties) comprise the principal obstacle to the GERD negotiations. Drawing upon the discussion regarding the dispute over colonial Nile Waters Treaties, this doctrinal research, using an evaluative legal research model, expounds the ramifications of the colonial Nile Waters Treaties and the Declaration of Principles (DoP) on the GERD. Building on the disagreement over the baseline for the GERD’s impact studies, examining the sticking points during the Washington negotiations, and probing the States’ arguments in the UNSC, the research indicates how the dispute over the colonial Nile Waters Treaties are reviving and affecting the GERD negotiations. Finally, the research calls upon the three States and the AU to address the problems associated with the colonial Nile Waters Treaties by limiting the scope of the current negotiations on the filling and annual operation of the GERD and leaving the long-term operation of the dam, water allocation and dispute resolution for the Cooperative Framework Agreement (CFA).
Emma Woidtke - The Getaway Driver Behind the Screen: How Accomplice Liability Should Extend to Dissemination of Violent Videos After Mass Shootings
Abstract: On March 19, 2019, a shooter opened fire on two mosques in New Zealand. Minutes before the attack, he posted on an online forum used similarly-minded individuals, to watch the livestream of the attack Facebook and to share his “message.” Following the attack, the video was downloaded, manipulated, and shared across the internet. In other countries, the dissemination of the video showing the violent attack and killings is punishable. However, First Amendment jurisprudence in the United States provides strong protections for free speech, making the video protected.
My Comment conducts an analysis of First Amendment law and explains why U.S. free speech protections would preclude extending liability to online sharers of videos. Additionally, there is a survey of selected international laws that would extend liability to sharers. Finally, I argue that the theory of accomplice liability from criminal law, is an appropriate way to hold sharers of violent footage liable for their actions on the theory that they are aiding and abetting the principal attacker in carrying out their campaign of terror.
McGeorge School of Law Student Research Showcase
Nico Chapman - Money for Nothing (I Want Publicity) - Amateurism is Dead and Fair Pay to Play Could be Next
Abstract: The United States Supreme Court gave the NCAA deferential treatment in antitrust litigation during the late 20th century, setting forth principles that the NCAA has relied upon in different litigation contexts. In the 1970's and 80's, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, men's basketball program saw enormous success under infamous coach Jerry Tarkanian. The NCAA investigated Coach Tarkanian and determined he violated many NCAA bylaws, and imposed harsh penalties against UNLV. In response, the state of Nevada enacted a law to require the NCAA follow certain due process requirements for their bylaw violations and investigations. The NCAA sued Nevada, and in Nat'l. Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Miller, the Ninth Circuit ruled in the NCAA's favor. Relying on principles from antitrust litigation, the Ninth Circuit held that the NCAA requires national uniformity in order to secure the integrity of its product. Thus, any state law that regulates the NCAA within that state, conflicting with the NCAA's bylaws, necessarily implicates the negative aspects of the Commerce Clause and is virtually per se unconstitutional. Since California is within the Ninth Circuit, Miller is binding precedent and would control litigation between the NCAA and California. The Fair Pay to Play Act required the NCAA to refrain from enforcing their amateurism bylaws in California, which interferes with the NCAA's uniformity requirements. Thus, the law is almost certainly unconstitutional. The article concludes by providing a method for California to successfully defend its law by attacking the underlying antitrust principles, which have weakened significantly over the previous decade. The justifications for amateurism are dead and should no longer preclude state efforts to protect its student-athletes.
Maddy Orlando - The Doctor Will See You Now: How the Opioid Crisis Changed the Standard of Care for Physicians in Medical Malpractice Suits
Abstract: In the past 20 years, opioid based drugs have fueled America's drug addiction epidemic. A large part of that is due to overprescribing and misprescribing of opioid based pain medications to patients through their physicians. Specifically my research looks to the standard of care element in medical malpractice cases and how the opioid crisis and subsequent knowledge about the potential dangers of these drugs has changed the way courts should judge physician conduct in cases involving opioid prescriptions. The standard of care should not be a single look to the act of prescribing itself, but rather a look at the entire physician-patient interaction to determine liability.
Mahemud Tekuya - Grand Ethiopian Renaissance
Abstract: For over five years, Ethiopia, Sudan, and Egypt have been conducting a series of negotiations over the filing and annual operation of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) but failed to strike a way forward deal acceptable to all of them. The recent involvement of the U.S. and World Bank in the negotiation further complicated the dispute and resulted in diplomatic crises. Although international and regional institutions, such as the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), the African Union (AU), and the European Union (EU), have already involved in the negotiations, three States have made no progress and yet to agree on several outstanding issues. This legal research argues that the colonial and 1959 Nile Treaties (colonial Nile Waters Treaties) comprise the principal obstacle to the GERD negotiations. Drawing upon the discussion regarding the dispute over colonial Nile Waters Treaties, this doctrinal research, using an evaluative legal research model, expounds the ramifications of the colonial Nile Waters Treaties and the Declaration of Principles (DoP) on the GERD. Building on the disagreement over the baseline for the GERD’s impact studies, examining the sticking points during the Washington negotiations, and probing the States’ arguments in the UNSC, the research indicates how the dispute over the colonial Nile Waters Treaties are reviving and affecting the GERD negotiations. Finally, the research calls upon the three States and the AU to address the problems associated with the colonial Nile Waters Treaties by limiting the scope of the current negotiations on the filling and annual operation of the GERD and leaving the long-term operation of the dam, water allocation and dispute resolution for the Cooperative Framework Agreement (CFA).
Emma Woidtke - The Getaway Driver Behind the Screen: How Accomplice Liability Should Extend to Dissemination of Violent Videos After Mass Shootings
Abstract: On March 19, 2019, a shooter opened fire on two mosques in New Zealand. Minutes before the attack, he posted on an online forum used similarly-minded individuals, to watch the livestream of the attack Facebook and to share his “message.” Following the attack, the video was downloaded, manipulated, and shared across the internet. In other countries, the dissemination of the video showing the violent attack and killings is punishable. However, First Amendment jurisprudence in the United States provides strong protections for free speech, making the video protected.
My Comment conducts an analysis of First Amendment law and explains why U.S. free speech protections would preclude extending liability to online sharers of videos. Additionally, there is a survey of selected international laws that would extend liability to sharers. Finally, I argue that the theory of accomplice liability from criminal law, is an appropriate way to hold sharers of violent footage liable for their actions on the theory that they are aiding and abetting the principal attacker in carrying out their campaign of terror.
https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/research-tuesdays/fall-2020/events/9
