STETSON LAW REVIEW - 24-3 Summer; (1995)
Volume 24 - Issue 3
|Title (click to download PDF)||Author(s)|
|Congressional Interference with the President's Power to Appoint
Mr. Wulwick and Dean Macchiarola examine three statutes which attempt to curb the president's constitutional power to appoint individuals to certain offices within his or her administration. They argue that these statutes are unconstitutional and show how these statutes limit the office of the presidency.
|Frank J. Macchiarola, Richard P. Wulwick|
|Choice-of-Law Problems in Florida Courts: A Retrospective on the Restatement (Second)
Professor Finch explicates the structure and the history of the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws and examines the case law produced by Florida's state and federal courts under the Restatement (Second). He discusses the divergent interpretations of the Restatement and identifies some of the missteps taken by the courts. He also sketches the outlines of a particularly Florida rendition of the Restatement. Finally, Professor Finch argues that the neoterritioralist bent of Florida courts is consonant with, though not commanded by, the Restatement's approach and can ultimately lead to fair and predictable results.
|Michael S. Finch|
|Beyond the Court's Standard Response: Creating an Effective Test for Determining Hostile Work Environment Harassment Under Title VII
Ms. Buff discusses the case of Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., in which the Supreme Court rejected the physiological injury requirement in a Title VII sexual harassment claim. After exploring the history of sexual discrimination claims under Title VII, she criticizes the Harris Court test because it is vague, provides scant guidance to employers, and invites misapplication. She proposes an alternative test which provides a more concrete and workable standard affording better notice to employers and employees of the conduct proscribed by Title VII.
|Dawn M. Buff|
|Carlton v. United States: An Analysis of Retroactive Tax Legislation
Exploring the case of Carlton v. United States, Ms. Gray discusses the disfavor with which courts originally viewed retroactive tax states and traces the change in opinion among the courts as the federal taxation system became more familiar. She then enumerates and distinguishes the various standards that have been used to analyze due process violations, showing how the Carlton Court diverged from case precedent in articulating its test. Finally, Ms. Gray argues that the Supreme Court should have reaffirmed the preeminence of the traditional due process test found in Welch v. Henry.
|Heather Lynn Gray|
|Does the Presumption of Legitimacy Actually Protect the Best Interests of the Child?
Ms. Montanari reviews the historical basis for the presumption of legitimacy in paternity suits and explores the case of Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services v. Privette. She argues that Privette should not be construed to mandate the appointment of a guardian ad litem in dissolution actions where the parties stipulate that the husband is not the biological father of a child born or conceived during the marriage. She also suggests various factors that the guardian ad litem should consider in determining if the child's interests would be best served by allowing the presumption to be rebutted.
|Kimberly G. Montanari|