Cumberland Law Review

Symposium Nov. 22: “The Future of Environmental and Natural Resource Law: BP and Beyond”

Volume 43 No. 2


Closely Held Corporations:  An Intersection of Business Law,
          and Ethics                                                                      Orrin K. (Skip) Ames III

Understanding the Impact of Inadequate Feedback:  A Means to
           Reduce Law Student Psychological Distress, Increase
           Motivation, and Improve Learning Outcomes                                Paula J. Manning


The Socially Unpopular Verdict:  A Post-Casey Anthony Analysis
           of the Need to Reform Juror Privacy Policy

Why Are Chapter 13 Debtors Still "Standing" in their Battle for
           Trustee's Avoidance Powers?:  A Call to Resolve the Current
            Circuit Split


Criminal Law—Habeas Corpus— State Jury Decision Reigns
         Supreme in Determination of Sufficiency of Evidence for
         Federal Habeas Relief.  Cavazos v. Smith, 132 S. Ct. 2 (2011).

Constitutional Law—Confrontation Clause—Expert
         Testimony of Non-Testifying Analyst's DNA Report is Non-
         Testimonial and Does Not Violate the Confrontation
         Clause, But Suprem Court Fails to Define Testimonial."
Williams v. Illinois, 132 S. Ct. 2221 (2012).

Page last updated: Fri, 01/24/2014 - 09:59