DOCSLIB.ORG

North Atlantic Regional Business Law Association

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
North Atlantic Regional Business Law Association Published by Husson University Bangor, Maine For the NORTH ATLANTIC REGIONAL BUSINESS LAW ASSOCIATION EDITORS IN CHIEF William B. Read Husson University Marie E. Hansen Husson University BOARD OF EDITORS Robert C. Bird Gerald A. Madek University of Connecticut Bentley University Gerald R. Ferrera Carter H. Manny Bentley University University of Southern Maine Stephanie M. Greene Christine N. O’Brien Boston College Boston College William E. Greenspan Lucille M. Ponte University of Bridgeport Florida Coastal School of Law Anne-Marie G. Hakstian Margo E.K. Reder Salem State College Boston College Chet Hickox Patricia Q. Robertson University of Rhode Island Arkansas State University Stephen D. Lichtenstein David Silverstein Bentley University Suffolk University David P. Twomey Boston College i GUIDELINES FOR 2011 Papers presented at the 2011 Annual Meeting and Conference will be considered for publication in the Business Law Review. In order to permit blind refereeing of manuscripts, papers must not identify the author or the author’s institutional affiliation. A removable cover page should contain the title, the author’s name, affiliation, and address. If you are presenting a paper and would like to have it considered for publication, you must submit two clean copies, no later than March 29, 2011 to: Professor William B. Read Husson University 1 College Circle Bangor, Maine 04401 The Board of Editors of the Business Law Review will judge each paper on its scholarly contribution, research quality, topic interest (related to business law or the legal environment of business) writing quality, and readiness for publication. Please note that, although you are welcome to present papers relating to teaching business law, those papers will not be eligible for publication in the Business Law Review. This subject matter should be submitted to the Journal of Legal Studies Education. Also note that the Board of Editors will consider only one paper per person, including co-authored papers. Only papers presented at the Annual Meeting will be considered for publication. FORMAT 1. Papers should be no more than 20 single-spaced pages, including endnotes. For fonts, use 12 point, Times New Roman. Skip lines between paragraphs and between section titles and paragraphs. Indent paragraphs 5 spaces. Right-hand justification is desirable, but not necessary. 2. Number pages in pencil on the back in the lower right corner. Do not number the front of the page. Please do not fold or staple your paper. 3. Margins: left—1-1/2 inches, right, top, bottom (except first page)—1 inch. 4. Upon acceptance, the first page must have the following format: a. The title should be centered, in CAPITAL LETTERS, on line 10. b. Following the title, center the word “by” and the author’s name, followed by an asterisk (*). c. Space down 3 lines and begin your text. d. Please add a solid line (18 spaces in length) beginning from the left margin, toward the bottom of the first page, leaving enough room under the line to type on the next line an asterisk and the author’s position or title and affiliation. This information should appear as the last line on the page. 5. Headings: FIRST LEVEL (caps, flush with left margin) Second Level (center, italics) Third Level: (flush with left margin, italics, followed by a colon [:]) Fourth Level: (flush with left margin, italics, followed by a colon [:], with text immediately following). 6. Endnotes should conform to the Uniform System of Citation, 19th edition and should begin 3 lines after the end of the text. 7. E-mail a copy of the final version of your paper in Microsoft Word to [email protected]. ii The Business Law Review is published once each year. Its purpose is to encourage scholarly research in Business Law and the Legal Environment of Business. Publication is made possible by gifts and grants from: Andover IP Law, Andover, MA. Bentley University, Waltham, MA. Husson University, Bangor, ME. North Atlantic Regional Business Law Association Suffolk University, Boston, MA. University of Bridgeport, Bridgeport, CT. West Educational Publishing THANK YOU Next Annual NARBLA Meeting April 2, 2011 Bentley University Waltham, MA Please contact: Professor Elizabeth A. Brown Law, Taxation and Financial Planning Department Bentley University 175 Forest Street Waltham, MA 02452 Mobile Phone: 415-260-6077 Office Fax: 781-788-6413 [email protected] iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Contract Issues and Specialized Courts: The Price of Admission Eric T. Bellone and Graham Kelder ......................................... 000001 Whistleblower Reform: Insufficient Protections, Uncertain Future David A. Goodof ......................................................................... 000017 Copying Copyrighted Coursepacks at Copyshops for Classroom Consumption: Copyright Owners 3, Copyshops 0 William E. Greenspan ............................................................... 000031 America’s Game: One Hundred Years of the Baseball Rule or “The Timorous May Stay at Home.” Chet Hickox ................................................................................ 000045 The CISG After Medellín: The Supreme Court and Self-Executing Treaties Carolyn Hotchkiss......................................................................000061 Independent Contractor v. Employee: The Never Ending Battle David S. Kistler..........................................................................000077 Online Behavioral Targeting: Efforts to Limit Unfair Information Practices Carter Manny ............................................................................. 000091 Practically Preempting Federal Predatory Lending: A Logical Roadmap Jason H. Peterson ...................................................................... 000113 Grumbling, Retaliation and the Fair Labor Standards Act: Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp. Patricia Quinn Robertson and John F. Robertson .................. 000133 New Rules For Computing U.S. Patent Terms After Wyeth v. Kappos David Silverstein ....................................................................... 000151 8 Copyright 2010 North Atlantic Regional Business Law Association v CONTRACT ISSUES AND SPECIALIZED COURTS: THE PRICE OF ADMISSION by ERIC T. BELLONE J.D.* AND GRAHAM KELDER, J.D.** INTRODUCTION Business law is the foundation of many legal concepts and principles used in other fields of learning. More and more disciplines are using basic business law principles in their daily matters. Health care providers use proxies for health care decisions; land developers employ the business law principle of the Statute of Frauds to transfer an interest in land; family law employs the business concept of agency in deciding how parents must care for their children; and the criminal justice system utilizes contract law for agreements between the State and a defendant where the defendant pleads guilty to a crime in exchange for a reduced sentence or charge. Unfortunately, business law principles are often misunderstood and misused by these other areas creating negative outcomes. In recent years, the criminal justice system has begun using specialized courts to deal with specific issues. The main type of specialized court is the drug court. Drug courts push basic business law concepts to new heights. Proponents maintain that while drug courts bend these legal concepts, they do not break them. Critics charge that drug courts not only break these legal concepts, but use their trappings * Eric T. Bellone is an Assistant Professor of Legal Studies at Suffolk University and a Ph.D. Candidate in Law, Policy & Society at Northeastern University. ** Graham Kelder is an Assistant Professor of Legal Studies at Suffolk University. 2 / Vol. 43 / Business Law Review to highjack the legitimacy that these legal concepts have attained through centuries of pedigree. Drug courts, like many specialized courts, press the judiciary and judges beyond their traditional roles. Drug courts hope to combine law and drug treatment as an effective and efficient means of drug therapy. Critics maintain that mixing therapy and law, dubbed “therapeutic jurisprudence,” creates a paradox that cannot be rationalized. Therapy presupposes that the offender is the victim of an illness and does not exercise free will, and therefore should be treated and not punished for the illness. Alternatively, criminal law presupposes free will. Punishment is based on altering individual choice through deterrence. These two concepts are diametrically opposed. In the drug court, when an offender cannot be “cured,” the law mandates that he or she be punished.1 This paper examines the allegation that drug court plea agreements/drug court contracts violate the basic legal principles of plea-bargaining and contract law and can only be aligned with such principles under limited circumstances. It presents an analysis of drug court post-plea entry through a framework of contract. Specifically, this paper will explore the allegation that when the State, as a drug court, enters into a contract with a defendant through the plea bargaining process, the arrangement creates a situation where one party to the contract (in particular the drug court judge) interprets the terms of the contract and also has the power to enforce its interpretation, leading to a lack or failure of consideration under contract law. A second concern involves the “point of failure” for drug court defendants when the drug court judge acts as both a participant in the drug court process and a fact-finder of a defendant’s
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Central Florida Future, Vol. 35 No. 65, May 28, 2003
    University of Central Florida STARS Central Florida Future University Archives 5-28-2003 Central Florida Future, Vol. 35 No. 65, May 28, 2003 Part of the Mass Communication Commons, Organizational Communication Commons, Publishing Commons, and the Social Influence and oliticalP Communication Commons Find similar works at: https://stars.library.ucf.edu/centralfloridafuture University of Central Florida Libraries http://library.ucf.edu This Newspaper is brought to you for free and open access by the University Archives at STARS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Central Florida Future by an authorized administrator of STARS. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Recommended Citation "Central Florida Future, Vol. 35 No. 65, May 28, 2003" (2003). Central Florida Future. 1637. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/centralfloridafuture/1637 - Making the grade Baseball loses Loaded grade points after IO?i ng summer season in A­ Film students Sun play. critique . -SEE summer SPORTS, 10 sequels. -:-SEE LIFESTYLES, 12 THE STUDENT NEWSPAPER .SERVING UCF SINCE 1968 THE- GENDER GAP ;Study: Women p.aid ~ · their worth at UCF JASON IRSAY of faculty pay, UCF's administration· both years, is there is virtually no sig­ STAFF WRITER was plea&antly surprised: UCF has nificant difference between male ·and 1• almost no ·significant gap, and in one female faculty members." A national . Despite consistently low pay for category, -women are paid more than survey released in April paints a dif­ female faculty at coll~ges throughout men. ferent picture for most colleges. ·the nation, UCF has reached relative "We analyzed both fall 1999 and . Though faculty salaries for both men parity in · salaries; according to two fall 20,00 ·faculty salary data," said ~nd women are rising, women contin- recent surveys.
    [Show full text]
  • My Name Is Robert Maclean. Currently My Whistleblower Protection Act Case Is the First Involving the Act That Will Be Heard by the Supreme Court
    TESTIMONY OF ROBERT MACLEAN before the HOUSE OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM COMMITTEE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL WORKFORCE, U.S. POSTAL SERVICE AND THE CENSUS September 9, 2014 Mr. Chairman: Thank you for inviting my testimony. My name is Robert MacLean. Currently my Whistleblower Protection Act case is the first involving the Act that will be heard by the Supreme Court. But I am not here to talk about the legal arguments. I want to share why I had to blow the whistle, and what it means for our country to protect the freedom to warn. The timeline below shares a whistleblowing experience I never wanted to have. But it forced me to make the most difficult choices and decisions of my life, about my duty to the country as a public servant and law enforcement officer. The timeline below chronicles a series of events that has changed my life forever, and may have been even more significant for our nation’s safety. 1992 — After four years as a nuclear weapons specialist, I was honorably discharged from the Air Force with a Top Secret clearance and the option to reenlist. 1996 — I became a Border Patrol Agent in the San Diego Sector. Not to be confused with a port inspector you see working at land border entry points or airports. I patrolled the vast area between entry points. 32 days after the 9/11 attacks — I was specially recruited to be in the first class of U.S. Federal Air Marshals (Air Marshals) to graduate after the 9/11 attacks. July 26, 2003 — Four months after the invasion of Iraq, all Air Marshals throughout the country were recalled for mandatory unprecedented in-office emergency suicidal Al-Qaeda hijacking training.
    [Show full text]
  • Using Turnitin to Provide Feedback on L2 Writers' Texts
    The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language August 2016 – Volume 20, Number 2 Using Turnitin to Provide Feedback on L2 Writers’ Texts * * * On the Internet * * * Ilka Kostka Northeastern University Boston, MA, USA <[email protected]> Veronika Maliborska Northeastern University Boston, MA, USA <[email protected]> Abstract Second language (L2) writing instructors have varying tools at their disposal for providing feedback on students’ writing, including ones that enable them to provide written and audio feedback in electronic form. One tool that has been underexplored is Turnitin, a widely used software program that matches electronic text to a wide range of electronic texts found on the Internet and in the program’s massive repository. While Turnitin is primarily known for detecting potential plagiarism, we believe that instructors can make use of two features of the program (GradeMark tools and originality checker) to provide formative and summative feedback on students’ drafts. In this article, we use screenshots to illustrate how we have leveraged Turnitin to provide feedback to undergraduate L2 writers about their writing and use of sources. We encourage instructors who have access to Turnitin to explore the different features of this tool and its potential to create opportunities for learning. Introduction Educators have long been concerned about plagiarism, and developments in technology and the Internet over the past two decades have further complicated the issue. One way that institutions have responded to these concerns is by purchasing matched text detection software, which is often referred to as plagiarism detection software. Simply defined, matched text detection software matches text to other electronic text to determine how similar the texts are to each other.
    [Show full text]
  • Glossary of Tools and Terms
    REPRODUCIBLE Glossary of Tools and Terms This appendix includes a list of terms and resources we introduced and used throughout the book. Apps, programs, and websites are listed, as well as digital and academic terms that will aid you in lesson planning both NOW and in the future. 1:1 or one to one: Describes the number of technology devices (iPads, laptops, Chromebooks) given to each student in an academic setting; a 1:1 school has one device per each student. 1:2 or one to two: Describes the number of technology devices (iPads, laptops, Chromebooks) given to each student in an academic setting; a 1:2 school means that one technology device is available for every two students in an academic setting. Two classes may share one class set, or students may partner up to use devices. Animoto (https://animoto.com): A video-creation website and app with limited free features and options for educator accounts (see https://animoto.com/education/classroom) Annotable (www.moke.com/annotable): A full-featured image-annotation tool Appy Pie (www.appypie.com): A free do-it-yourself software tool for building apps in three easy steps Audacity (www.audacityteam.org): A free macOS and Windows software tool for editing complex audio clips AutoRap (www.smule.com/listen/autorap/79): An iOS and Android app for mixing audio tracks to create a rap; the free version allows users to choose from two beats to make a song, and the paid version allows users to choose from a large selection of beats, including new and popular songs.
    [Show full text]
  • Institutional Self-Evaluation Report 2017 (PDF)
    Solano Community College Institutional Self-Evaluation Report in Support of Reaffirmation of Accreditation Submitted by: Solano Community College 4000 Suisun Valley Road Fairfield, CA 94534 Submitted to: Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges Western Association of Schools and Colleges August 2017 BOARD OF TRUSTEES ROSEMARY THURSTON, PRESIDENT SARAH CHAPMAN, PH.D., VICE PRESIDENT DENIS HONEYCHURCH, J.D. PAM KEITH MICHAEL A. MARTIN QUINTEN R. VOYCE A. MARIE YOUNG CELIA ESPOSITO-NOY, ED.D., BOARD SECRETARY SUPERINTENDENT-PRESIDENT CELIA ESPOSITO-NOY, ED.D. ACCREDITATION LIAISON OFFICER DAVID WILLIAMS, PH.D. ACCREDITATION SELF EVALUATION COORDINATOR SAKI CABRERA, PH.D. ACCREDITATION LEAD WRITER MELISSA REEVE ACADEMIC SENATE PRESIDENT MICHAEL WYLY Table of Contents Introduction History of the Institution .................................................................................................... 1 Presentation of Student Achievement Data and Institution-Set Standards ........................ 5 Organization of the Self Evaluation Process ................................................................... 39 Organizational Information .............................................................................................. 43 Certification of Continued Institutional Compliance with Eligibility Requirements ................................................................................... 59 Certification of Continued Institutional Compliance with Commission Policies ............ 61 Standard I ..............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Turnitin Student Guide Contents
    Turnitin Student Guide Turnitin Student Guide Contents Introduction to the Turnitin Tool .............................................................................................................................. 2 Reasons to Use the Turnitin Tool .............................................................................................................................. 2 Checking Your Work with Turnitin ............................................................................................................................ 3 Submitting a File .............................................................................................................................................................. 3 Accessing the Originality Report ..................................................................................................................................... 4 Understanding the Originality Report ....................................................................................................................... 5 Coincidental Matches ...................................................................................................................................................... 5 Significant Matches ......................................................................................................................................................... 5 Match: Work Submitted by Another Student ............................................................................................................. 6 Match: Outside
    [Show full text]
  • Point Park University Self-Study 2020
    Point Park University Self-Study 2020 POINT PARK UNIVERSITY SELF-STUDY 2020-2021 REPARED EPTEMBER P S 30, 2020 Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 7 Standard I: Mission and Goals ...................................................................................................... 14 Standard II: Ethics and Integrity ................................................................................................... 24 Standard III: Design and Delivery of the Student Learning Experience ...................................... 35 Standard IV: Support of the Student Experience .......................................................................... 52 Standard V: Educational Effectiveness Assessment ..................................................................... 71 Standard VI: Planning, Resources, and Institutional Improvement .............................................. 83 Standard VII: Governance, Leadership, and Administration...................................................... 104 Committee Membership.............................................................................................................. 114 Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................... 117 Point Park
    [Show full text]
  • HUSKERS in MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL 35 Huskers Have Played in a Major League Baseball Game 9 World Series Rings - 9 All-Star Selections - 7 Gold Glove Awards
    HUSKERS IN MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL 35 Huskers have Played in a Major League Baseball Game 9 World Series Rings - 9 All-Star Selections - 7 Gold Glove Awards BOB CERV (PLAYED AT NEBRASKA: 1947-50) STAN BAHNSEN (PLAYED AT NEBRASKA: 1965) MLB Career: 1951-62 MLB Career: 1968-83 Kansas City Athletics, New York Yankees, Los Angeles Angels, Houston Astros New York Yankees, Chicago White Sox, Oakland Athletics, Montreal Expos, California Angels, Philadelphia Phillies Honors World Series Champion (1956) Honors All Star (1958) American League Rookie of the Year (1968) Year Team G AVG AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO SB Year Team W-L SV ERA G GS CG SH IP H R ER BB SO 1951 NY-AL 12 .214 28 4 8 1 0 0 2 4 6 0 1966 NY-AL 1-1 1 3.52 4 3 1 0 23 15 9 9 7 16 1952 NY-AL 36 .241 87 11 21 3 2 1 8 9 22 0 1968 NY-AL 17-12 0 2.05 37 34 10 1 267.1 216 72 61 68 162 1953 NY-AL 8 .000 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1969 NY-AL 9-16 1 3.83 40 33 5 2 220.2 222 102 94 90 130 1954 NY-AL 56 .260 100 14 26 6 0 5 13 11 17 0 1970 NY-AL 14-11 0 3.33 36 35 6 2 232.2 227 100 86 75 116 1955 NY-AL 55 .341 85 17 29 4 2 3 22 7 16 4 1971 NY-AL 14-12 0 3.35 36 34 14 3 242 221 99 90 72 110 1956 NY-AL 54 .304 115 16 35 5 6 3 25 18 13 0 1972 Chi-AL 21-16 0 3.60 43 41 5 1 252.1 263 107 101 73 157 1957 KC-AL 124 .272 345 35 94 14 2 11 44 20 57 1 1973 Chi-AL 18-21 0 3.57 42 42 14 4 282.1 290 128 112 117 120 1958 KC-AL 141 .305 515 93 157 20 7 38 104 50 82 3 1974 Chi-AL 12-15 0 4.70 38 35 10 1 216.1 230 128 113 110 102 1959 KC-AL 125 .285 463 61 132 22 4 20 87 35 87 3 1975 Chi-AL 4-6 0 6.01 12 12 2 0 67.1
    [Show full text]
  • Media Kit 2020
    MEDIA KIT 2020 © 2019 Oregonian Media Group. All rights reserved. Full Version 1. Your Local Business Partner We want to empower our local businesses, to help them grow and succeed and build thriving communities. Because we’re a part of the community, too. To do that, we use the most innovative technology we can find. The same technology we use to reach millions of readers. Backed by talented people, proven processes and powerful networks. And it takes true partners to get results. So our teams become your advocates. We believe great relationships start with collaboration, run on integrity, and depend on accountability. Here’s how we can help. THE OREGONIAN MARKETING SOLUTIONS TEAM MEDIA KIT 2019 YOUR LOCAL BUSINESS PARTNER 2 MEDIA KIT 2019 MISSION + VALUES 4 OUR REACH 7 OUR SOLUTIONS 15 OUR MARKETING TECHNOLOGY 26 OUR MARKETING PROCESS 29 PRINT ADVERTISING OPTIONS 35 MEDIA KIT 2019 INDEX 3 MISSION + VALUES MISSION + VALUES MISSION We make a difference in the communities we serve by empowering our audiences with high-quality news and information. We partner with our clients to help them grow. We will succeed as a constantly evolving company by embracing innovative ideas, talented people and a progressive culture. MEDIA KIT 2019 MISSION + VALUES | MISSION 5 MISSION + VALUES VALUES Collaboration Customer Focus Integrity Fearlessness Accountability MEDIA KIT 2019 MISSION + VALUES | VISION 6 OUR REACH OUR AUDIENCE IS 8.7M OREGONLIVE 1 UNPARALLELED UNIQUE VISITORS 1.1 M FOLLOWERS ON SOCIAL MEDIA 2 782 K READERS OF THE OREGONIAN & E-EDITION 3 Source: 1. Google Analytics. Aug. 2019; 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Brief in Opposition ______
    No. 13-894 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States _________ DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Petitioner, v. ROBERT J. MACLEAN, Respondent. _________ On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit _________ BRIEF IN OPPOSITION _________ THOMAS DEVINE NEAL KUMAR KATYAL GOVERNMENT Counsel of Record ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT AMANDA K. RICE 1612 K Street, N.W. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP Suite 1100 555 Thirteenth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 Washington, D.C. 20004 (202) 637-5600 [email protected] Counsel for Respondent i QUESTION PRESENTED In recognition of the crucial role federal employees play in uncovering unlawful, wasteful, and danger- ous government activity, Congress has enacted strong protections for government whistleblowers. One such provision provides that agencies may not retaliate against employees who disclose information revealing, among other things, “any violation of any law, rule, or regulation” or “a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.” 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8)(A). There is an exception, however, for “disclosure[s] * * * specifically prohibited by law” or by certain Executive orders. Id. Disclosure of certain kinds of sensitive but unclas- sified information, referred to as “Sensitive Security Information,” is prohibited by regulation. See 49 C.F.R. Pt. 1520. Those regulations are promulgated pursuant to a general statutory delegation of author- ity. See 49 U.S.C.A. § 114(r)(1). The question presented is whether a disclosure of Sensitive Security Information is “specifically prohib- ited by law” within the meaning of Section 2302(b)(8)(A).
    [Show full text]
  • Prohibited Personnel Practices (PPP) Complaint to the OSC, November 17, 2006 3) OSC Letter to Robert Maclean Closing His PPP Complaint, December 7, 2006
    Project On Government Oversight Breaking the Sound Barrier: Experiences of Air Marshals Confirm Need for Reform at the OSC November 25, 2008 666 11th Street, NW, Suite 900 • Washington, DC 20001-4542 • (202) 347-1122 Fax: (202) 347-1116 • E-mail: [email protected] • www.pogo.org POGO is a 501(c)3 organization CONTENTS Executive Summary.........................................................................................................................4 Introduction......................................................................................................................................7 The Office of Special Counsel: Mission Unaccomplished..............................................................9 Whistleblower Retaliation at the Federal Air Marshal Service.....................................................14 Air Marshals, Like Other Whistleblowers, Travel Alone..............................................................18 Looking for Excuses Not to Help..................................................................................................21 The OSC Does Not Act to Stop the Retaliation.............................................................................23 The OSC Not Using Its Disclosure Process to Push for the Truth................................................24 OSC Program to Inform Employees of Whistleblower Rights Lags Behind................................28 Conclusion.....................................................................................................................................30
    [Show full text]
  • Section 4: Business Institute of Bill of Rights Law at the William & Mary Law School
    College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Supreme Court Preview Conferences, Events, and Lectures 2014 Section 4: Business Institute of Bill of Rights Law at the William & Mary Law School Repository Citation Institute of Bill of Rights Law at the William & Mary Law School, "Section 4: Business" (2014). Supreme Court Preview. 244. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/preview/244 Copyright c 2014 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/preview IV. Business In This Section: New Case: 13-433 Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk p. 256 Synopsis and Questions Presented p. 256 “AMAZON WAREHOUSE WORKER PAY SUIT HEADS TO SUPREME COURT” p. 262 Claire Zillman “SUPREME COURT MAY FINALLY CLARIFY COMPENSABLE TIME” p. 264 Kenneth W. Gage “AMAZON WORKERS WANT PAY FOR TIME SPENT AT SECURITY p. 268 CHECKPOINT” Aaron Kase “FLSA ACTION CAN COEXIST WITH STATE CLASS CLAIMS: 9TH CIRC.” p. 270 Ben James New Case: 13-894 Department of Homeland Security v. MacLean p. 272 p. Synopsis and Questions Presented p. 272 “SUPREME COURT TO DECIDE WHETHER AIR MARSHAL SHOULD BE p. 280 PROTECTED AS WHISTLEBLOWER” Robert Barnes “IS HIKE IN WHISTLEBLOWER CLAIMS A SIGN OF PROGRESS OR GROWING p. 282 MISTRUST?” Jack Moore “FED. CIRC. UPS PROTECTION FOR WHISTLEBLOWERS’ DISCLOSURES” p. 285 Bill Donahue New Case: 13-485 Comptroller v. Wynne p. 287 Synopsis and Questions Presented p. 287 “SUPREME COURT AGREES TO HEAR LANDMARK CASE ON WHETHER p. 303 STATES MAY TAX INCOME EARNED IN OTHER STATES” Kelly Phillips Erb “SUPREME COURT TO HEAR MARYLAND DOUBLE TAXATION CASE” p.
    [Show full text]