Georgetown University Law Center

About: Georgetown University Law Center is a based out in . It is known for research contribution in the topics: Supreme court & Public health. The organization has 585 authors who have published 2488 publications receiving 36650 citations. The organization is also known as: Georgetown Law & GULC.

Don’t Tell Mom I Didn’t Pay My Taxes!: The Efficacy of State Shaming Campaigns on Taxpayer Compliance and Ideas for the Future

Abstract: At least 25 states and regions across the country have engaged in some form of taxpayer shaming campaigns - the act of publicly shaming noncompliant taxpayers. Although these campaigns have, for the most part, proven successful, there is room for improvement. This Comment provides a brief overview of the state tax gap problem, first by defining the “tax gap,” and then looking at state-specific tax gap statistics. The Comment then unearths the taxpayer’s decision making process, introducing several factors that influence a taxpayer’s compliance decision. The concept of shaming campaigns is introduced, followed by the identification of the elements necessary for an effective shaming campaign and an examination of several state taxpayer shaming campaigns. The Comment concludes with recommendations for improving the efficacy of state shaming campaigns, primarily through the use of modern social media and inclusion of underreporters in state shaming campaigns.

Piece by Piece Review of Digitize-and-Lend Projects Through the Lens of Copyright and Fair Use

Abstract: Digitize-and-lend library projects can benefit societies in multiple ways, from providing information to people in remote areas or with physical disabilities to facilitating the sharing of ...

The bounds between negligence and strict liability

Abstract: Two opposite and competing arguments are normally invoked to ground tort liability. The first seeks to justify liability as a consequence of unreasonable conduct: essentially, liability arises wherever there has been an (unintentional) lack of due care. This type of liability is based on what we will call here ‘fault’ or, in keeping with common law terminology, ‘negligence’. The second justification put forth in arguing for liability relies on the risk attaching to a certain activity or (defective) thing. This second type of liability is incurred irrespective of the defendant’s (careful) behaviour. In the present study, we will refer to it as ‘strict’ liability. A closer examination of the relevant legislation and case-law shows that both lawmakers and the courts tend to mix the two justifications, seeking a middle ground between them. Thus, for example, there are laws that impose a heightened duty of care on persons that carry out hazardous operations or keep dangerous things. In other cases, there may be a presumption of fault that attaches to the realization of certain harms. As a result, the situation is one in which there are not simply two alternative paths, but rather a single wide road with several lanes, offering different mixes of the two types of liability. This does not, of course, mean that the dichotomy between negligence and strict liability is no longer relevant. In our opinion, the distinction between them is real, and should be maintained as a means of accentuating the moral and social implications of tort law. However that may be, strict liability is often defined in restrictive terms and limited to risks specifically designated in the statutory regimes. Because of this, risks that may appear to be similar in many ways do not always trigger the same kind of liability. As the application of statutory provisions by analogy is not usually permitted, only risks specifically named in a statute will trigger such liability. A number of authors have criticized this approach, calling for the introduction of a ‘general clause’ of strict liability. In an effort to mitigate the apparent randomness of certain legislative choices, various proposals have recently been put forward that would enable the courts to consider certain general categories of risks as justifying strict liability.A number of arguments can be made for the proposition that the ideal solution would be to base liability on defendant conduct in all cases where due care ought, in principle, to be sufficient to avoid harmful outcomes. Conversely, liability based solely on risk should arise only where careful conduct is not capable of ensuring that no harm will be caused. In such cases, the result alone – that is, the realization of a particular hazard – should be taken to justify liability. In the following, we will examine those arguments, considering also the ways different legal systems choose between the different approaches to liability – and the ways in which cultural bias no doubt influences those choices. We will begin with a brief review of the arguments generally adduced in favour of negligence-based and strict liability. We will then focus on some recent developments and proposals that seek to clarify the dividing line between the two. We will finally present an overall assessment and analysis of the various ways in which negligence and strict liability interface with one another.

The Ideal and the Actual in the State: Willard Hurst at the Board of Economic Warfare

Abstract: Unlike other proteges of Felix Frankfurter in the 1930s, James Willard Hurst left his clerkship with Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis in 1937 not for law job in Washington but to teach at the University of Wisconsin Law School. Together with his dean Lloyd K. Garrison, Hurst developed "Law in Society," a New Dealer's first course in law, centered not on courts but administrative agencies. When the war came, Hurst had the chance to test out his notions of law and administration as a lawyer at the Board of Economic Warfare. Headed by Vice President Henry A. Wallace, the BEW was a bastion of New Dealism in an increasingly business-oriented war effort. Among other things, it was charged with developing and procuring new overseas supplies of war materiel to replace sources that had fallen into enemy hands. Hurst contributed one of the BEW's most controversial measures, a provision in procurement contracts obliging employers to observe minimum labor standards. This attempt to fight "a New Deal war" by improving the lives of African and Latin American workers failed not long after Hurst's departure for the U.S. Navy. Still, the affair elucidates much of Hurst's pioneering scholarship on legal history and the legal profession in the postwar period.

Pricing and Paying for Cancer Drugs: Policy Options for Fixing A Broken System.

Abstract: The US system for pricing and paying for cancer drugs is badly broken. The evidence is all around us-whether we focus on total spending, the breathtakingly high prices for chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy, the exceedingly high prices for many recently introduced drugs that offer only marginal improvements over existing treatments, or the increasing unaffordability of patient copayments. These problems are compounded by the distortions created by our payment policies, which do not take account of the value of competing treatment options and are structured in ways that distort physicians' incentives. We review the key drivers of cancer drug spending and consider the trade-offs of various policy options for addressing this problem.