Journal of Law & Practice

4 Wm. Mitchell J. L. & P. 4
By: Leslie Lienemann and Justin Cummins^[Y]

In a case of first impression, the Minnesota Supreme Court has held that a woman who experienced sexual harassment while performing according to the terms of a contract was not protected by the Minnesota Human Rights Act (“MHRA”).^[1] The case was brought by business owner Pamela Krueger and her corporation, Diamond Dust Contracting, after Krueger was sexually harassed by employees of Zeman Construction Company, a business with which Diamond Dust Contracting had a contract.^[2] The Minnesota Supreme Court held that only Diamond Dust Contracting, and not Krueger, could sue for harassment because only Diamond Dust Contracting was a signatory to the business contract with Zeman Construction Company.^[3] Read the rest of this entry »

^[A]

Introduction

There are many misconceptions surrounding women’s rights in Islam.  The purpose of this article is to shed some light on the basic rights of women in Islam in the context of marriage and divorce.  This article is only to be viewed as a basic outline of women’s rights in Islam regarding marriage and divorce.  Muslim clients’ situations will vary greatly depending on what Islamic School of Thought (Hanafi, Hanbali, Maliki, and Shafi) they follow, whether they are Sunni or Shiite, their cultural traditions, and a variety of other factors. Read the rest of this entry »

4 Wm. Mitchell J. L. & Prac. 2
By: Judge Jerome Abrams^[Y]

INTRODUCTION

The central concept behind insurance in general, and liability insurance in particular, is risk transfer.^[1] The simple nature of paying some amount of money in advance of a future event, which could result in a greater loss, provides some measure of economic security.^[2] However, there can be many uncertainties involved in risk transfer through insurance.^[3] Read the rest of this entry »

4 Wm. Mitchell J.L. & Prac. 1

By: Kristin Berger Parker and Ellen G. Sampson

^[Y]
           This paper looks at the kinds of statements that can be considered defamatory, the chilling effect that the tort of defamation has on the communication of important information, and also examines the similarities and distinctions between public and private defamation, focusing on the speech interests at hand.  It then discusses the privilege defenses that courts have developed to alleviate the chilling effect of the tort, both in the public and private contexts.  Finally, this paper considers how defamation and the privileges operate in the employment context. Read the rest of this entry »

3 Wm. Mitchell J.L. & Prac. 3

By: Professor Kenneth L. Port ^[1]

On March 19, 2009, the Minnesota Supreme Court took a significant step in leveling the intellectual property playing field.  In General Cas. Co. v. Wozniak Travel, Inc.,^[2] the Court determined that trademark infringement falls within the scope of a commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policy and that it amounts to an advertising injury.^[3] As such, trademark infringement should fall within the scope of the insurance policy and the insurance company must defend the defendant.^{[4] Read the rest of this entry »}