University of New Hampshire

School of Law

School of Law

UNH Law Review

Issue: Volume 9, Number 3

May 2011

  • A Machine Made Of Words: Our Incompletely Theorized Constitution

    The conventional wisdom says that the U.S. Constitution represents "a comfortable and even emphatic agreement on . . . general principle, accompanied by sharp disagreement about particular cases." This essay draws attention to an often overlooked feature of the Constitution that lies in tension with the conventional view. For a document that is assumed to represent an agreement on general principles, the U.S. Constitution contains remarkably few statements of principle. In fact, an empirical analysis suggests that the U.S. Constitution has a good claim to containing the least abstract theorizing of any constitutional document of its era. The Constitution is thus an "incompletely theorized agreement" not only in the sense of being a work of broad theoretical agreement that breaks down at the level of particularity, but also in the sense of being an agreement on particular, concrete rules accompanied by disagreement on the abstract theories supporting those rules.
  • Billy-Bob Teeth Saves Porn Star: Coping With Defective Work-For-Hire Registrations

    This article first discusses how the initial ownership of a copyright is determined and what the statute of limitations is to challenge such ownership. The author then discusses when and how defective copyright registrations can be cured and discusses two recent cases that were decided on this issue, Billy-Bob Teeth, Inc. v. Novelty, Inc. and Jules Jordan Video, Inc. v. 144942 Canada Inc. Finally the author discusses how there is sometimes a simpler way, by using the statute of limitations, to cure defects in title when there are competing ownership claims. For that analysis, the author discusses how Billy Bob Teeth and Jules Jordan Video would have proceeded had the statute of limitations been reviewed.
  • From Trusted Confidant To Witness For The Prosecution: The Case Against The Recognition Of A Dangerous-Patient Exception To The Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege

    This article discusses the dangerous patient exception to the psychotherapist patient privilege as recognized in United States v. Glass. The exception was fashioned after criteria set forth in a footnote in the Supreme Court case Jaffee v. Redmond pursuant to the authority set forth in Federal Rule of Evidence 501. The author discusses these cases and others in which courts have refused to recognize the exception, as well others that have adopted it. She argues against the recognition of the dangerous patient exception to the psychotherapist patient privilege and presents the reasons why the Glass court is wrong and demonstrates the exception is not justified by "reason and experience."
  • London, Libel Capital No Longer?: The Draft Defamation Act 2011 And The Future Of Libel Tourism

    This Note reviews the U.K. Ministry of Justice’s Draft Defamation Bill, released in March 2011, which proposes a substantial overhaul of English libel laws as well as the procedures applied in libel actions. Further, it discusses the differences between the U.S. and English libel laws and procedures. The author addresses several key issues with the Draft Defamation Bill, including its potential for reducing the problem of libel tourism. Finally, the author suggests that the Draft Defamation Bill’s reforms may lead to tension between U.S. and English privacy laws.
  • Due Process, Fundamental Fairness, And Judicial Deference: The Illusory Difference Between State And Private Educational Institution Disciplinary Legal Requirements

    This article explores the legal differences and similarities of legal challenges to disciplinary proceedings against students of public institutions and those of private institutions. The author points out inconsistencies in the procedural requirements that courts impose on private institutions and argues that there is little difference between how private and public institutions are treated in that respect. The article makes recommendations to private institutions regarding disciplinary policy creation and implementation.

Credits

VOLUME 10
Numbers 1-2
2011/2012
Editorial Board
Editor-in-Chief:
Jonathan Foskett '12
Managing Editor:
Sarah Crush '12
Chief Articles Editor:
Carl Gunlefinger '12
Chief Notes Editor:
Carroll Dortch '12
Executive Editor:
Uillame Bell '12

Senior Articles Editors
Kelly Donahue '12
Jon Jonsson '12
Ernest Kawka '12
Michael McCubbin '12

Associate Editors
Jared Bedrick '12
Matthew Burrows '13
Elizabeth Gray '13
Clinton Leite '13
Dustin Lo '13
Richard Peterson '12
Brian Rosenberg '13
James Savage '13

Faculty Advisor
Jordan Budd

Notes Advisor
Alice Briggs

Business Manager
Kathleen Hennessy