Suffolk Journal of Trial & Appellate Advocacy

COPYRIGHT TV Trade Media, Inc.
COPYRIGHT GALE, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

COPYRIGHT GALE, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved

from January 2006
Last Number: June 2022

Suffolk University Law School
ISSN 1535-3419




Cantidad de documentos en esta fuente: 159

January 01, 2007

  • Editor's note.

  • After Crawford: using the confrontation clause in Massachusetts courts.

  • Why the plain view doctrine should not apply to digital evidence.

  • Developing wind power projects in Massachusetts: anticipating and avoiding litigation in the quest to harness the wind.

  • Executing the insane: a look at death penalty schemes in Arkansas, Georgia and Texas.

  • James Otis, Paul Revere, a routine traffic stop and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court: when it comes to drug-detection, it's not who let the dogs out, it's who wouldn't?

  • Seeing the light: ignoring collateral economic benefits to the public when enforcing servitudes.

  • State of confusion: the HIPAA privacy rule and state physician-patient privilege laws in federal question cases.

  • Hearing thy neighbor: the doctrine of attenuation and illegal eavesdropping by private citizens.

  • Constitutional law--the "knock and announce" rule becomes obsolete--Hudson v. Michigan, 126 S. Ct. 2159 (2006).

  • January 01, 2006

  • Prosecuting sham marriage under 18 U.S.C. [section] 1546: is validity of marriage material?

  • Good intentions are not enough: the argument against a higher standard of proof in capital cases.

  • Litigating land use in Massachusetts: defining municipalities' legitimate use of rate of development restrictions.

  • Dropping the K-bomb: a compendium of kangaroo tales from American judicial opinions.

  • Construction defect litigation: courts' fragmented rationales regarding coverage for contractor's faulty workmanship.

  • Securities fraud litigation--lost in causation: investors not entitled to presumption of loss causation in fraud-on-the-market cases--Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo, 125 S. CT. 1627 (2005).

  • Jury instructions, not problematic expert testimony, in child sexual assault cases.

  • Editor's note.

  • Defining the limits of a physician's duty to disclose in Massachusetts.

  • Gestational carrier agreements: Massachusetts recognition of the parties' choice of laws.

  • Civil rights--state prisoners may challenge constitutionality of parole procedures under 42 U.S.C. [section] 1983--Wilkinson v. Dotson, 125 S. CT. 1242 (2005).

  • Expert handwriting testimony: is the writing really on the wall?

  • Trial objections: the way of advocacy.

  • January 01, 2010

  • Singled out: application and defense of antitrust law and single entity status to non-team sports.

  • How Chapter 93A consumers lost their day in court: one legislative option to level the playing field.

  • Vacatur of foreign judgments: options for collateral relief in courts of registration.

  • Squandering the last word: the misuse of reply affidavits in summary judgment proceedings.

  • Exploring challenges with the discovery of text messages in federal cases through the lens of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. ss. 2701-11.

  • Locked out: the hidden threat of claim preclusion for tenants in summary process.

  • Administrative law and procedure - student loan discharges under Chapter 13 bankruptcy and ripeness for adjudication - Educational Credit Management Corp. v. Coleman (In re Coleman).

  • January 01, 2009

  • Judicial participation in plea negotiations: the elephant in chambers.

  • Criminal law - Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act extends filing time for fraud claims against Big Dig contractors - United States v. Prosperi.

  • Spoliation in a digital world: proposing a new standard of culpability in Massachusetts for an adverse inference instruction.

  • The uncertain status of the legal certainty test: the need for consistency among federal courts when determining the amount-in-controversy.

  • Navigating e-discovery in the Massachusetts state trial courts.

  • A free pass for corporate conspirators? Inconsistent distinctions between civil and criminal corporate conspiratorial liability.

  • Criminal law - inconclusive DNA test results admitted as relevant evidence despite absence of random match probability analysis - Commonwealth v. Mattei.

  • Constitutional law - in-home interrogation in a police-dominated atmosphere ruled custodial requiring Miranda warnings - United States v. Craighead.

  • Class action certification in private securities litigation: endangered species?

  • January 01, 2011

  • The limits of "extraordinary power": a survey of first-degree murder appeals under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 278, Section 33E.

  • Determining self-employment income for child support purposes: the Massachusetts view compared with the national view.

  • Leading by example: why the First Circuit should adopt a medical peer-review privilege.

  • Lights, camera, mistrial: conflicting federal court local rules and conflicting theories on the aggregate effect of cameras on courtroom proceedings.

  • Work product protection, tax accrual documents, and United States v. Textron, Inc.: why the First Circuit got it right for the wrong reasons.

  • The testimonial nature of multidisciplinary team interviews in Massachusetts: applying Crawford to the child declarant.

  • Evidence of ambiguity: the effect of circuit splits on the interpretation of federal criminal law.

  • The naked truth: an in-depth look into the question of hearsay admissibility at probation violation hearings in Massachusetts, the application of Rule 6, and what it all means for the future of the Massachusetts probation system.

  • Civil procedure--intra-military immunity doctrine applies to dual status technicians--Zuress v. Donley, 606 F.3d 1249 (9th Cir. 2010).

  • Rethinking the additur question in federal courts.

  • Constitutional law--permitting blanket strip-search policies for all arrestees entering general jail population--Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of Burlington County, 621 F.3d 296 (3d Cir. 2010).