The Wake Forest Journal of Law and Policy is co-hosting a symposium exploring the repercussions of the First Circuit’s seminal decision in Milward v. Acuity Specialty Products with the Center for Progressive Reform on Thursday, May 17, in Washington, D.C.

In Milward, the First Circuit became the first court – either federal or state – to allow a “weight of the evidence” methodology for assessing causation in a toxic tort case, says Wake Fores Law Professor Sidney Shapiro, who is also vice president for CPR . 

The symposium will explore the implications of Milward for toxic tort litigation in federal and state courts, including the role of the weight of the evidence methodology in scientific risk assessment and regulatory decisionmaking, and whether Milward correctly applies Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. Among the presentors is Wake Forest Law Professor Mike Green.

 The symposium will be held from 9 a.m. to 3:15 p.m. at the Credit Union House, 403 C Street, NE.

 “Academics, key hill staff members, and toxic tort plaintiff advocates will take part in this exciting day,” Shapiro said. 

The Wake Forest Journal of Law and Public Policy will publish speakers’ papers in the first issue of Volume 3, to be published in Spring 2013.

AGENDA

Thursday, May 17, 2012

9:00 – 9:30 am             Meet; coffee and light breakfast      

The Credit Union House, 403 C Street, NE Washington, D.C. 20002

9:30-9:45                     Introductions – Sid Shapiro

9:45-10:30                   Thomas McGarity, University of Texas School of Law, and Sid Shapiro, Wake

Forest University and CPR Board Member

10:30-11:15                 Steve Jensen, Allen Stewart, P.C.

11:15-11:30                 Break

11:30-12:15                 Professor Steve Gold, Rutgers School of Law

12:15-1:15                   Lunch

1:15-2:00                     Professor Joseph Sanders, University of Houston Law Center

2:00-2:45                     Professor Mike Green, Wake Forest University Law School

2:45-3:15                     Closing discussion mediated by Sid Shapiro and Thomas McGarity

So North Carolina has a marriage amendment in its constitution. What now?

For starters, the debate isn’t over. Gay-marriage proponents have vowed to use organizational ties forged in the amendment fight to keep their issues in the public eye. They started last week, sending gay couples to county offices to request marriage licenses the couples knew they couldn’t get and to get arrested for refusing to leave.

The protect-marriage crowd is ready to defend the amendment approved Tuesday if need be, supporters said. But it seems more likely they’ll be able to declare victory and move on to other issues. Local pastor Ron Baity, whose Return America group pushed the marriage amendment for years, said last week that there are “many issues on the front burner,” but “I’m not going to tip my hand.”

The handful of local governments that offer health benefits to employees’ domestic partners are sorting out what the amendment means for them. At least one Mecklenburg County commissioner is pushing to end his county’s existing benefit program, The Charlotte Observer reported last week. The city of Charlotte is considering adding same-sex benefits in what could lead to a test case for the new amendment, the newspaper reported.

Read the full story here.

The Pro Bono Project at Wake Forest University School of Law partnered with Advanced Placement to help jumpstart the program, Reclaiming Futures, in Forsyth County. 

Reclaiming Futures is a nationwide project that strives to help young people who struggled with drugs, alcohol, and crime by partnering juveniles with positive, caring adults to serve as their mentors.  There was a need in Forsyth County for mentor volunteers and law students at Wake Forest stepped forward to fill this void. 

Chief Judge William B. Reingold has been a vocal supporter of having Reclaiming Futures in Forsyth County.  He has met and spoken with each mentor as well as many other law students about the benefits of serving as a mentor.  Judge Reingold hopes that the partnership between the Pro Bono Project and Reclaiming Futures “is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.”

The Wake Forest University School of Law students meet at least once a week with their mentees and participate in activities such as bowling, prom dress shopping, and playing basketball.  The mentors are required to write “contact notes,” which they submit to Advanced Placement monthly, to help ensure that the program is running effectively.

Although law students make a one-year commitment to the program, most of this year’s mentors have expressed their desire to remain involved in their mentee’s lives.  Kelsey Baird (’13), a mentor, called her experience “valuable as it is fulfilling . . . and one of the best programs I’ve been involved in at Wake Forest.” 

The Pro Bono Project has been thrilled to organize volunteers for Reclaiming Futures this year, and has already received numerous requests by law students to be partnered with mentees next year. New mentors will be trained and paired up with a mentee by Advanced Placement in September.

Professor Michael Curtis tells the Fayetteville Observer that generally constitutional amendments can’t be unconstitutional under the constitution they are amending but that the U.S. Supreme Court has the power to overturn the constitutional ban on same-sex unions.

On Tuesday the vote, on Wednesday the aftermath. As supporters of the constitutional ban on same-sex unions rejoiced in its passage, the president announced his personal support for same-sex marriage and gay rights groups vowed to continue their battle for recognition.

“The fight’s not over,” said Storm Silvermane, president of the Alliance, an advocacy group for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people in the Sandhills.

“Certain organizations may think that they won,” Silvermane said, “but as long as we’re still standing, the fight is not over.”

The amendment passed by a wide margin, 1.3 million votes to about 830,000 in unofficial tallies. That didn’t surprise Tami Fitzgerald, who led the Vote FOR Marriage NC coalition that campaigned for the measure.

Read the full story here.

Professor Tanya Marsh will be part of the ABA’s “Professor’s Corner” teleconference a 12:30 EST on Wednesday, May 9, to discuss Roundy’s Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board.

The ABA Real Property, Trust and Estate Law Section’s Legal Education and Uniform Laws Group offers a free monthly teleconference, “Professor’s Corner,” in which a panel of three law professors highlight and discuss recent real property cases of note.

Anyone interested is welcome to participate in this call, which is always held on the second Wednesday of the month. The call-in number is 866-646-6488. When prompted for the passcode, enter the passcode number 557-741-9753. The panelists for the May 9 call are:

Marsh, Assistant Professor of Law at Wake Forest University School of Law, who will discuss Roundy’s Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, 674 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. 2012). Decided in March 2012, this case held that Roundy’s (a non-union supermarket chain) did not have the right to exclude third parties (in this case, non-employee union organizers) from common areas of shopping centers in which it operated.

Professor Matt Festa, Associate Professor of Law at South Texas College of Law, who will discuss Severance v. Patterson, 2012 WL 1059341 (Tex. 2012). In this case, decided March 30, 2012, the Texas Supreme Court struck down the “rolling easement” theory of public beachfront property access under the Texas Open Beaches Act.

Professor Wilson Freyermuth, John D. Lawson Professor and Curators’ Teaching Professor a the University of Missouri, who will discuss Summerhill Village Homeowners Ass’n v. Roughley, 270 P.3d 639 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012), in which the court refused to permit the mortgage lender to exercise statutory redemption after its lien was extinguished by virtue of a foreclosure sale by an owners’ association to enforce its lien for unpaid assessments. He will also discuss First Bank v. Fischer & Frichtel, 2012 WL 1339437 (Mo. April 12, 2012), in which the Missouri court rejected the “fair value” approach to calculating deficiency judgments under the Restatement of Mortgages.

“It should be an interesting conversation with a good variety issues to discuss,” Festa writes in the Land Use Prof Blog. “Please feel welcome to participate, whether or not you are a currently a section member.”

Charges filed this week against 13 people in connection with a hazing death at Florida A&M University have thrust the hazing culture into the spotlight.

Florida has one of the toughest anti-hazing laws in the country, but legal experts say prosecuting the crime can be tricky.

State attorney Lawson Lamar, who is leading the prosecution in the death of drum major Robert Champion, acknowledges the case is complicated.

“We know that Robert Champion died as a result of being beaten,” he says. “His death is not linked to one sole strike, but is attributed to multiple blows.”

Read the full story here.

After months of rallies, marches and heated debate, North Carolina’s proposed marriage amendment is less than a week away from the ballot box.The amendment on the ballot reads, “Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state.”

But there’s a second sentence to it that is not on the ballot that would also be added to the constitution if the amendment passes: “This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.”

The amendment would ban same-sex marriages, civil unions and domestic partnerships for unmarried couples, straight or gay. It could only be changed by another constitutional amendment.

Twenty-eight other states have approved constitutional bans on same-sex marriage, but the bans are not all the same. Some only address marriage, while others go further. No other state has enacted the exact language of North Carolina’s amendment.

“This is the most ambiguous of any in the country. If the supporters really wanted to just prohibit same-sex marriage, that’s the amendment they should have written. They reached too far,” said Suzanne Reynolds, associate dean at the Wake Forest University School of Law.

Read the full story here.

Imagine an investment that is guaranteed — at least initially — to lose you money. Such an investment was once quite common and still exists: the front-loaded mutual fund.

To buy into such funds, investors pay as much as 5.75 percent of their initial investment in a load charge. That $40,000 you wanted to invest? It instantly shrinks by $2,300.

Plenty of investors still pay loads. According to fund research firm Strategic Insight, 5 percent of mutual fund shares were bought with a load of 4 percent or more in 2010. Mutual funds charge the fee, but almost all of its proceeds are sent to the broker or adviser recommending the fund. However, the percentage of funds sold with front-end loads is dropping rapidly, and excessive loads could disappear almost entirely under new regulations.

Read the full story here.

 I do not favor gay marriage. I do not personally believe that gay people should marry in this state or any other. This conviction is based on reasons likely very different from those of Amendment One’s supporters. Nevertheless, I oppose Amendment One.

The pertinent observation is that Amendment One is not about marriage. If the legislators giving us Amendment One want to write a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, they can do so in simple language. I’ll even suggest some language here: “Marriages between individuals of the same gender are not valid in North Carolina.”

Incidentally, North Carolina already has a law that says just that, enacted in 1995. Clearly, if our legislators believe that a majority of us want a law banning gay marriage, they know how to write one. Instead, Amendment One, before voters on Tuesday, says: “Marriage between a man and a woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State.”

Read more here.

In one of the largest hazing prosecutions ever, 13 people were charged Wednesday in the brutal hazing death of Florida A&M University drum major Robert Champion.

State attorney Lawson Lamar said 11 people are accused of hazing resulting in death, a third-degree felony punishable by up to six years in prison for defendants who have no criminal records. Two defendants face misdemeanor charges in the November death.

The state also filed 20 counts of misdemeanor hazing against others in unrelated incidents.

It was not immediately clear whether those charged were all students or whether they included faculty members. By Wednesday afternoon, two were in custody at the Leon County jail in Tallahassee: Rikki Wills, 24, and Caleb Jackson, 23. Both are charged with felony hazing resulting in death. Wills, who was also a drum major, declined to comment when reached by phone. No working phone number was available for Jackson. The names of the other 11 have not been released.

The charges bring renewed scrutiny to hazing, the sometimes-violent endurance rituals that persist at some college fraternities and among band members at some historically black colleges and universities. FAMU’s Marching 100, which was suspended indefinitely after Champion’s death, has a history of hazing going back decades.

Gregory Parks, an assistant professor of law at Wake Forest University in North Carolina who has edited several books on Greek-letter organizations, also doesn’t expect the Champion case to deter would-be hazers. “This is a long, ingrained culture within these organizations, where violent hazing has taken place,” he said.

Read the full story here.