Graphic: Masthead for Washburn Law Journal (WLJ) Online.

Washburn Law Journal Online

Estop Me If You’ve Heard This One Before: When Judicial Integrity Is Not Protected by the Doctrine of Judicial Estoppel [Vacca v. Missouri Dep’t of Labor & Indus. Relations, 2017 WL 5146154 (Mo. Ct. App. Nov. 7, 2017), transferred to Mo. S. Ct. (Mar. 6, 2018)]

Morgan Hammes | November 29, 2018 | Read this comment

Summary: Matthew Vacca, Administrative Law Judge for the Workers’ Compensation Division, filed for divorce and asked for maintenance from his wife because he was unable to work. He also filed a lawsuit against his employer for retaliation and wrongful termination where he stated he was capable of continuing to work with accommodations. The Missouri Court of Appeals ruled the doctrine of judicial estoppel, which prevents parties from making inconsistent statements to two courts, did not apply. However, the purpose of the doctrine is to promote judicial integrity. An Administrative Law Judge, who acts as an officer of the court, should not be able to abuse the same system he is charged with upholding by making contradictory statements to the court.

Preferred Citation: Morgan Hammes, Estop Me If You’ve Heard This One Before: When Judicial Integrity Is Not Protected by the Doctrine of Judicial Estoppel, 58 Washburn L.J. Online 43 (2018), http://washburnlaw.edu/wljonline/hammes-judicialestoppel

Lost in Translation: Colorado’s Supreme Court Overlooking the Requirement of a Knowing and Intelligent Miranda Rights Waiver [People v. Nguyen, 406 P.3d 836 (Colo. 2017)]

Benjamin Donovan | November 15, 2018 | Read this comment

Summary: In a 4-3 opinion, the Colorado Supreme Court reversed the district court’s suppression order, holding the interpreter adequately conveyed the defendant’s Miranda rights to him. In so ruling, the majority failed to examine the totality of the circumstances to determine if the defendant adequately understood his rights before concluding the defendant’s waiver was knowing and intelligent.

Preferred Citation: Benjamin Donovan, Lost in Translation: Colorado’s Supreme Court Overlooking the Requirement of a Knowing and Intelligent Miranda Rights Waiver, 58 Washburn L.J. Online 34 (2018), http://washburnlaw.edu/wljonline/donovan-mirandarights

Paging Constitutional Protections: Interrogating Vulnerable Suspects In Hospitals [People v. Sampson, 404 P.3d 273 (Colo. 2017)]

Bretton Kreifel | November 1, 2018 | Read this comment

Summary: In People v. Sampson, the Colorado Supreme Court held that a police interrogation of a suspect while he was receiving medical treatment for a stab wound in a hospital did not violate the suspect’s rights. In doing so, the Colorado Supreme Court allowed police to continue to use arguably coercive interrogation techniques. This appears to run counter to one of the goals of Miranda warnings, which is to ensure that statements made during an interrogation are voluntary.

Preferred Citation: Bretton Kreifel, Paging Constitutional Protections: Interrogating Vulnerable Suspects In Hospitals, 58 Washburn L.J. Online 25 (2018), http://washburnlaw.edu/wljonline/kreifel-interrogations

Consent vs. Authority: An Examination of the Tenth Circuit’s View of Consensual Police Encounters [United States v. Hernandez, 847 F.3d 1257 (10th Cir. 2017)]

Tim Carney | October 18, 2018 | Read this comment

Summary: The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held two Denver Police Officers did not have reasonable suspicion to detain an individual. The court also found the officers did not have proper consent when they used a “show of authority” in requesting the individual stop walking while talking with them. The court erred in finding that consent did not exist in this case.

Preferred Citation: Tim Carney, Consent vs. Authority: An Examination of the Tenth Circuit’s View of Consensual Police Encounters, 58 Washburn L.J. Online 18 (2018), http://washburnlaw.edu/wljonline/carney-policeencounters

Registration Approach vs. Application Approach: Section 411(a)’s Copyright Registration Requirement [Fourth Estate Pub. Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC, 856 F.3d 1338 (11th Cir. 2017)]

Haley Sipes | October 04, 2018 | Read this comment

Summary: The term “registration” in section 411(a) of the Copyright Act receives different treatment among federal circuit courts. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that registration only occurs after a copyright is registered by the Register of Copyrights, adopting the “registration approach.” The Tenth Circuit also follows this approach. The Fifth and Ninth Circuits, however, apply the “application approach,” holding that filing an application is sufficient to show registration under section 411(a) to bring an infringement suit.

Preferred Citation: Haley Sipes, Registration Approach vs. Application Approach: Section 411(a)’s Copyright Registration Requirement, 58 Washburn L.J. Online 11 (2018), http://washburnlaw.edu/wljonline/sipes-copyright

Analyzing the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s Peculiar Expansion of Dram Shop Liability [Boyle v. ASAP Energy, Inc., 408 P.3d 183 (Okla. 2017)]

Curry Sexton | September 20, 2018 | Read this comment

Summary: Following a tragic collision at the hands of an intoxicated driver, the Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed the trial court and court of appeals and expanded dram shop liability within its state by holding that Fast Lane Stores, Inc. had a duty to desist from selling low-point beer to clearly intoxicated individuals. Oklahoma had never enforced this duty upon vendors selling to adult individuals for off-premises use.

Preferred Citation: Curry Sexton, Analyzing the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s Peculiar Expansion of Dram Shop Liability, 58 Washburn L.J. Online 1 (2018), http://washburnlaw.edu/wljonline/sexton-dramshopliability

Short URL for this page:
http://washburnlaw.edu/wljonline

Volume 58 Cases Reviewed