In this episode of Reasonably Speaking, NYU Law’s Erin Murphy and UC Irvine Law’s Ken Simons explore the difference between criminal law and tort law in the United States and then focus on how “consent” is, and should be, defined in sexual assault allegations.
In response to a recent story concerning opposition to The American Law Institute’s Restatement of the Law of Liability Insurance in the Texas state legislature, it appears that at least one sponsor owns an insurance agency, so I assume that some part of the insurance industry has been lobbying for this, even though the insurers and the sponsors have not even seen the final version of the Restatement.
The U.S. Supreme Court cited the Restatement of the Law Third, Property: Mortgages, in holding that a business that engaged in no more than the enforcement of a security interest—such as a law firm that pursued nonjudicial foreclosures on behalf of clients—was not a “debt collector” within the meaning of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6), except for the limited purpose of § 1692f, which prohibited entities from threatening to foreclose on a consumer’s home without having legal entitlement to do so.
Property law has proven difficult to restate, with none of The American Law Institute’s previous Restatements coming close to covering the full breadth of this area. In addition to trying to fill this gap, those working on the current Fourth Restatement aim to capture the architecture of property.
In a recent U.S. Supreme Court opinion, Air & Liquid Systems Corp. v. DeVries, No. 17-1104 (March 19, 2019), Associate Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, and Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, writing in dissent, cited the Second and Third Restatements of the Law, Torts.
This episode of Reasonably Speaking passes the microphone to American Indian Law experts Matthew Fletcher and Wenona Singel for a serious look at tribal sovereignty, voting rights, violence against native women, and much more.