Announcing our 2017 Symposium! “Protect and Serve: Perspectives on 21st Century Policing”

The Georgia Law Review is pleased to announce that it will present a symposium titled “Protect and Serve: Perspectives on 21st Century Policing” on Friday, January 27, 2017. Police practices and community expectations of the duties of law enforcement personnel often lead to sweeping changes in criminal law. The recent news coverage of policing issues […]

Read more

2013-2014 National Moot Court Competition

Congratulations to GLR members Steven Strasberg, Ben Thorpe, and Emily Westberry! (Feb. 14, 2014) The Executive Moot Court Board is proud to announce that our National Moot team won the 2013-14 National Moot competition nationals held in New York City.  Team members Steven Strasberg, Ben Thorpe and Emily Westberry won the final round against Emory […]

Read more

Eleventh Circuit Upholds Constitutionality of City Ordinance Prohibiting Picketing, Denies Constitutionality of Loitering Provision in Ordinance

In Winnifred Bell v. City of Winter Park, Florida, No. 13-11499 (Mar. 20, 2014), the Eleventh Circuit decided whether the City of Winter Park’s Ordinance No. 2886-12, which generally prohibits targeted picketing within fifty feet of a residential dwelling, is an unconstitutional infringement on First Amendment freedom of speech. Comparing § 62-79 of the ordinance […]

Read more

Announcing our 2017 Symposium! “Protect and Serve: Perspectives on 21st Century Policing”

The Georgia Law Review is pleased to announce that it will present a symposium titled “Protect and Serve: Perspectives on 21st Century Policing” on Friday, January 27, 2017. Police practices and community expectations of the duties of law enforcement personnel often lead to sweeping changes in criminal law. The recent news coverage of policing issues […]

Read more

What Did the Supreme Court Hold in Heffernan v. City of Paterson?

Reasoned opinions count as much or more than outcomes, partly because “reasoned response to reasoned argument is an essential aspect of [the judicial] process,” and partly because “the opinion has as one if not its major office to show how like cases are properly to be decided in the future.” Scrutiny of the Supreme Court’s reasons is called for not only when the result seems doubtful, but also when the result is intuitively appealing. Weak reasons may in the long run undermine a holding that deserves a better foundation than the Court has built for it, or at least distort and delay the elaboration of doctrine. When the intuition behind the holding deserves broader application than the Court’s reasons can support, an effort to identify more convincing reasons is an especially worthwhile project.

Heffernan v. City of Paterson, illustrates the good result/weak reasons problem.

Read more

From Russia without Love

  From Russia without Love *Chris Collins After dissolving their 16 year marriage, Anna Sergeeva, Appellee, and Mikhail Leopoldovich Dubin pursued a division of marital assets in Hoamvnischesky District Court of Moscow.  Sergeeva v. Tripleton Int’l Ltd., No. 15-3008, 2016 WL 4435616, at *1 (11th Cir. Aug. 23, 2016).  Ms. Sergeeva claimed that her ex-husband […]

Read more