November 9, 2009 at 11:55 am (Journal of Law & Practice)
Tags: News
Welcome to the William Mitchell Journal of Law & Practice
The mission of the William Mitchell Journal of Law & Practice is to publish insightful articles and other scholarly writings on the forefront of legal practice in Minnesota. The Journal is committed to expressing how the impact of current legislation and recent court decisions affects the practice of law, and to presenting the practitioner’s views about how current legislation and recent court decisions may affect their practice of law.
We hope you find this new journal helpful in both your practice, and continuing legal education.
–The Editorial Staff
Comments Off
November 9, 2009 at 11:54 am (Journal of Law & Practice)
By: Phil Duran[Y]
Introduction:
Travel up the North Shore’s Highway 61 to Canada, or down I-35 to Iowa, and you will find, within a few hours’ drive, destinations where discrimination in marriage has come to an end and same-sex couples from Minnesota and elsewhere may legally marry.[1] Travel west on I-90, or in either direction on I-94, and you will soon enter states whose constitutions have been amended by popular vote to deny same-sex couples access to marriage (and in some cases to any other form of legal recognition).[2] In the middle of it all stands Minnesota: Minnesota statutes prohibit same-sex couples from marrying, but efforts to write this policy into our constitution have seemingly ground to a halt.[3] Read the rest of this entry »
Leave a Comment
March 1, 2009 at 1:28 pm (Journal of Law & Practice)
By: Professor Mike Steenson[1]
I. Introduction
Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc.,[2] arose out of the death of 24-year-old Michael Riley.[3] Mr. Riley (“Riley”) jumped from a bridge after being stopped for DWI by a Minnesota State Highway Patrol officer who arrested, but did not handcuff Riley.[4] His family and girlfriend sued Twin Town Bowl under the Civil Damages Act,[5] alleging that Riley was illegally served alcohol there, that the illegal sale led to his intoxication, and that his intoxication caused his death.[6] Read the rest of this entry »
Leave a Comment
March 1, 2009 at 10:55 am (Journal of Law & Practice)
By: Ted Sampsell-Jones[1]
I. Introduction
American criminal trials are governed by a variety of rules that protect criminal defendants. Such rules protect both innocent defendants and guilty defendants. Protection of the latter is a necessary but perhaps regrettable consequence of protecting the former. Pro-defense legal rules occasionally result in guilty defendants going free, but that result is said to be warranted because the same rules protect innocents from wrongful convictions. The tradeoff is justified by the traditional Anglo-American principle, made famous by Blackstone: “it is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer.”[2] Read the rest of this entry »
Leave a Comment
February 6, 2009 at 5:17 pm (Journal of Law & Practice)
By: Lindsay W. DavisY
I. Introduction
This article explores the public policy considerations surrounding criminal conviction record sealing and the effect of two recent appellate decisions on criminal expungement law in Minnesota.[1] Legal Aid and other service providers for Minnesota’s low-income population have a strong interest in adequate post-conviction remedies, as individuals with criminal records have a very difficult time obtaining stable housing and employment. Southern Minnesota Regional Legal Services participated as amicus curiae when, for the first time in over 25 years, the Minnesota Supreme Court accepted a case centered on a court’s inherent authority to seal criminal records.[2] Read the rest of this entry »
Leave a Comment
