There are countless ways to design a chair. The designer of the chair on which you are currently sitting may have designed it for style, comfort, utility, or all of the above. The more consumers enjoy the design, the more likely the designer will want to protect his intellectual property through trade dress to combat knockoffs, preserve his exclusive right to distinguish his product, and prevent other companies from free-riding on his marketing expenditures. The more functional the chair’s design, however, the less likely it will acquire trade dress. Indeed, some legal scholars believe that there is no possibility of furniture articles acquiring trade dress because furniture is functional.[1]
New Jersey’s current energy regulations regarding solar photovoltaic (PV) use are not reaching their stated purpose. New Jersey’s Residential Development Solar Energy Systems Act set forth commendable goals for an ambitious approach toward solar energy use. The Herculean standards the State government has set would, ostensibly, make using solar energy sources on the residential level an attainable goal. However, the regulations, in effect, negate the purpose of encouraging the use of solar energy sources.[1]
In September 2014, President Obama expanded the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument (PRIMNM) to include 490,000 square nautical miles in the south-central Pacific Ocean, making it the largest marine protected area (MPA) in the world.[1] While this is a positive step in terms of ocean conservation, this MPA will be part of a larger disjointed system of MPA management in the United States.[2] This Note examines some of the weaknesses of the PRIMNM and explores solutions for strengthening MPA management in the United States based on Australia’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, the U.S. Coastal Zone Management Act, and California’s Marine Life Protection Act.[3]
The debate over gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered (hereinafter GLBT) rights is controversial in society and in the courts. GLBT advocates are poised to change the way courts in the United States and communities view equal protection under the law. Traditional equal protection analysis defines the classification of people burdened by the law, and then applies the appropriate level of scrutiny based on the classification. Justice Anthony Kenney authored all of the Supreme Court opinions addressing the classification of sexual orientation. Critics of Justice Kenney assert that he is vague and his opinions provide little guidance for attorneys and judges. In this note I will argue that Justice Kennedy’s opinions provide clear guidance to advocates for equality and, I will propose a new test for equal protection analysis to be applied to classifications based on sexual orientation.
In July 2010, a section of a pipeline located in Marshall, Michigan burst.[1] Approximately one million gallons of diluted bitumen spilled into the Talmadge Creek, a tributary of the Kalamazoo River.[2] Diluted bitumen, commonly referred to as “dilbit”, is a petroleum blend consisting of oil sands taken from Alberta, Canada and gas condensates.[3] Responders and investigators found that the diluted bitumen did not behave as ordinary crude oil usually does in a spill, by floating to the surface of the water.[4] Instead, the EPA noted that submerged diluted bitumen attached itself to particles and sank, coating the bottom of the river and that diluted bitumen that had been exposed to sunlight formed a sticky, impermeable coat.[5] The Kalamazoo oil spill was arguably one of the costliest oil spills in United States history.[6]
The summer of 2013 was momentous for Ohio residents John Arthur and James Obergefell. In early July, after more than 20 years together, the couple flew to Maryland to be married. Because a neurological condition was rapidly depriving John of his ability to move and speak on his own, the couple exchanged vows from inside the plane’s cabin. After a mere 56 minutes on the ground, the pilots flew the newlyweds back to their home in Cincinnati.[1] Just two weeks before John and James married, the Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in United States v. Windsor.[2] The decision overturned Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act and thereby paved the way for federal recognition of lawful same-sex marriages. But the ruling left untouched the legal framework that allows states to deny recognition to otherwise valid same-sex marriages. Therefore, when John and James returned to Ohio, they reclaimed their unwanted status as single under the laws of the state. The couple also faced the unsettling prospect that John would soon die.[3] Because of Ohio’s ban on recognition of same-sex marriages, the state would list John’s marital status on his death certificate as “unmarried” and would fail to name James as his surviving spouse. Determined to avoid this quiet nullification of their marriage, John and James filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the state of Ohio.
This Note examines the implications of predictive policing and seeks ways to avoid legal snares. Predictive policing is the practice of using computer algorithms that predict the time and place crimes are likely to occur. “Crime maps” and other statistical law enforcement tools are not new and are part of an overall trend towards intelligence-led policing.[1] However, recently the Los Angeles Police Department, as well as other law enforcement agencies, has spearheaded the use of software that interprets vast amounts of data and makes predictions well outside of human intuition.[2] So far studies have shown predictive policing techniques to be generally successful.[3] Some police agencies have pinpointed 500-square-foot “hot spots,” lowered crime, and saved money by distributing manpower in accordance.[4]
Regulating group homes for marginalized groups, including developmentally disabled people, has social justice implications that extend beyond the traditional environmental, economic, and technical considerations that generally underlay land use decisions. Group homes are community residential facilities: homes that are integrated in residential neighborhoods, but contain support professionals that do not ordinarily exist in the archetype nuclear families that have historically predominated the American residential landscape.
At least 267,000 undocumented Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) adults are presently living in the United States.[1] This figure, however, does not include those undocumented LGBT immigrants under the age of eighteen.[2] LGBT-identified youth not only deal with higher rates of violence at home, familial rejection, and homelessness than heterosexual children, but introducing immigration issues significantly increases these risks.[3] Overwhelming roadblocks obstruct individuals’ attempts to obtain lawful immigration status in the United States, and LGBT immigrant youth “must endure the same ‘coming out’ process as their American counterparts, but they also face the additional burden of living undocumented or facing deportation if their families reject them.”[4]
A series of undercover videos exposing inhumane conditions on factory farms has sprung up in recent years.[1] In 2011, an activist working for Mercy for Animals filmed undercover at Sparboe Egg Farms, McDonald’s main egg supplier.[2] The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) documented disturbing acts of animal cruelty at a Bushway Packing slaughterhouse in Grand Isle, Vermont in 2009,[3] and later at Hallmark Meat Packing in Chino, California.[4] When leaked to the public, the footage obtained during these undercover investigations can have dramatic, tangible effects.[5] As a result of Mercy for Animals’ investigation, Sparboe received a warning letter from the Food and Drug Administration and McDonald’s dropped the company as its supplier.[6] As of November 13, 2013, the video had over 1,100,000 views on Youtube.[7] Following HSUS’ investigation at Grand Isle, the state shut down the slaughterhouse[8] and charged two former employees with animal cruelty.[9] HSUS’ investigation in Chino led to the largest meat recall in history.[10]
Submissions The Vermont Law Review continually seeks articles, commentaries, essays, and book reviews on any subject concerning recent developments in state, federal, Native American, or international law.
