St. Thomas law review最新文献

Clarifying State Action Immunity under the Antitrust Laws: FTC V. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc 澄清反垄断法下的国家行动豁免:联邦贸易委员会诉菲比普特尼卫生系统公司

St. Thomas law review Pub Date : 2013-01-30 DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2123677

Angela M. Diveley

{"title":"Clarifying State Action Immunity under the Antitrust Laws: FTC V. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc","authors":"Angela M. Diveley","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2123677","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2123677","url":null,"abstract":"The tension between federalism and national competition policy has come to a head. The state action doctrine finds its basis in principles of federalism, permitting states to replace free competition with alternative regulatory regimes they believe better serve the public interest. Public restraints have a unique ability to undermine the regime of free competition that provides the basis of U.S.- and state-commerce policies. Nevertheless, preservation of federalism remains an important rationale for protecting such restraints. The doctrine has elusive contours, however, which have given rise to circuit splits and overbroad application that threatens to subvert the state action doctrine’s dual goals of federalism and competition. The recent Eleventh Circuit decision in FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc. epitomizes the concerns associated with misapplication of state action immunity. The U.S. Supreme Court recently granted the FTC’s petition for certiorari and now has the opportunity to more clearly define the contours of the doctrine. In Phoebe Putney, the FTC has challenged a merger it claims is the product of a sham transaction, an allegation certain to test the boundaries of the state action doctrine and implicate the interpretation of a two-pronged test designed to determine whether consumer welfare-reducing conduct taken pursuant to purported state authorization is immune from antitrust challenge. The FTC’s petition for writ of certiorari raises two issues for review. First, it presents the question concerning the appropriate interpretation of foreseeability of anticompetitive conduct. Second, the FTC presents the question whether a passive supervisory role on the state’s part can be construed as state action or whether its approval of the merger was a sham. In this paper, I seek to explicate the areas in which the state action doctrine needs clarification and to predict how the Court will decide the case in light of precedent and the principles underlying the doctrine.","PeriodicalId":82796,"journal":{"name":"St. Thomas law review","volume":"25 1","pages":"73"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67924768","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

What’s Love Got to Do With It?: Contemporary Lessons on Lawyerly Advocacy from the Preacher Martin Luther King, Jr. 这和爱情有什么关系?马丁·路德·金牧师对律师维权的当代启示

St. Thomas law review Pub Date : 2008-08-28 DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.1265810

Deborah J. Cantrell

{"title":"What’s Love Got to Do With It?: Contemporary Lessons on Lawyerly Advocacy from the Preacher Martin Luther King, Jr.","authors":"Deborah J. Cantrell","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1265810","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1265810","url":null,"abstract":"To date, the discourse on faith and lawyering has often focused on the question of whether or not a lawyer should use faith-based values to inform her lawyerly practice. The discourse is dichotomous and polarized, with one view seeing destructive consequences and the other seeing productive consequences. For those opposed to faith in lawyering, the expressed concern is that lawyers of faith cannot help but either dominate their clients or disengage from their clients. Those who lawyer from faith respond that, to the contrary, their faith encourages them to behave in ways that are beneficial to their clients and to more general ideas of social justice. That dichotomous call and response, when kept at the level of \"whether or not\" to lawyer from faith, is irreconcilable. This article seeks to move beyond the dichotomy by considering a particular faith-based mandate, \"love of neighbor.\" It postulates what specific lawyerly actions based on \"love of neighbor\" might look like, and then assesses whether those actions are consistent with lawyerly obligations. Distinctively for legal scholarship, it does so from an interfaith perspective, looking to Christianity, Judaism, and Buddhism. The article concludes that \"love of neighbor\" provides an example of a particular faith-based concept that encourages lawyerly practice deeply consistent with accepted professional responsibilities.","PeriodicalId":82796,"journal":{"name":"St. Thomas law review","volume":"22 1","pages":"296"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68154184","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 3

Prenatal tort law and the personhood of the unborn child: a separate legal existence. 产前侵权法和未出生婴儿的人格:一个独立的法律存在。

St. Thomas law review Pub Date : 2003-01-01

Gregory J Roden

引用次数: 0

Community participation and representation in genetic studies: testing the application of fundamental ethical principles. 基因研究中的社区参与和代表:检验基本伦理原则的应用。

St. Thomas law review Pub Date : 2002-05-15 DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.310481

A. Brito

{"title":"Community participation and representation in genetic studies: testing the application of fundamental ethical principles.","authors":"A. Brito","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.310481","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.310481","url":null,"abstract":"Recent advances in the Human Genome Project (HGP) and its promise for the betterment of human health has escalated public consciousness about the science of genetics as well as concern about possible misuse of information garnered from this field. However, it is important to emphasize that neither genetics nor its associated and undesirable ideology of eugenics is new. In fact, eugenics was well established by the close of the 19th century, most influenced by the interpretation of Mendel's famous breeding experiments. Foremost in these explications were the works of biologist Charles Davenport in the United States and the \"Victorian polymath\" Francis Galton. Basing his theories on Mendel's work, Davenport applied a reductionist approach to explain a wide variety \"of human conditions and behaviors from mental retardation and epilepsy to alcoholism and poverty.\" Galton believed \"that much human weakness and misery arose ineluctably from the germ line.\" This ideology, based largely on the over-simplification and misinterpretation of scientific information, persisted in much of Western culture and was firm in the minds of many scientists and non-scientists in the United States in the 1920s and 1930s. The philosophy reached its lowest point at the hands of the Third Reich, whose atrocities ultimately lead to the establishment of the Nuremberg Code in 1947, the moment generally regarded as marking the beginnings of modern bioethics. The Nuremberg Code is a set of ten principles designed to protect human research subjects by emphasizing consent of the subject and placing much of the responsibility on investigators. Its principles, particularly the first, \"The voluntary consent of the human subjectis absolutely essential,\" set in motion the subsequent establishment of a series of international and United States guidelines and regulations primarily concerned with the protection of individual research subjects. It is this focus on the individual, not groups or populations, that challenges the application of existing regulations and their core ethical principles to genetic studies. This article focuses on the application of these regulations, their core ethical principles, and the challenges of applying them towards studies more likely to be concerned with populations than individuals.","PeriodicalId":82796,"journal":{"name":"St. Thomas law review","volume":"13 4 1","pages":"935-43"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2139/SSRN.310481","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68562196","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Bio-ethics and physician liability: the liability effects of developing pain management standards. 生物伦理学和医生责任:制定疼痛管理标准的责任效应。

St. Thomas law review Pub Date : 2002-01-01

Steven E Stark

引用次数: 0

Genetic breakthroughs and the limits of medicine: short stature, growth hormone, and the idea of dysfunction. 基因的突破和医学的局限:身材矮小、生长激素和功能障碍的概念。

St. Thomas law review Pub Date : 2001-01-01

P H Schwartz

引用次数: 0

Knowledge and wisdom: human genetic interventions with religious insight. 知识与智慧:人类基因干预与宗教洞察力。

St. Thomas law review Pub Date : 2001-01-01

K Fitzgerald