Current Issue

Subscribe here!

Volume 38, Issue 1 of the Hawaiʻi Law Review featured an article authored by Hon. James S. Burns (retired), titled The Crown Lands Trust: Who Were, Who Are, the Beneficiaries?  Volume 39 will feature several articles in response to Chief Judge Burns’s article, one of which will be authored in part by law professors Melody Kapilialoha MacKenzie and D. Kapuaʻala Sproat.

Volume 39, Issue 1, will feature a number of articles of general interest, including:

stevenferreySteven Ferrey, Eminent Domain and Serrated Power

Now that private unregulated power suppliers have superseded public utilities’ role as primary suppliers of new electric energy, can these new private stakeholders exercise “public” eminent domain?  Suffolk University Professor Steven Ferrey analyzes this question by examining key Supreme Court precedent, relevant state and local law controlling power facilities, and the limits on exercise of eminent domain that reshaped the power sector of the American economy.

 

jonathanmarcantelJonathan A. Marcantel, A Unified Framework to Adjudicate Corporate Constitutional Rights

Charleston School of Law Professor Jonathan A. Marcantel points out that, while the Supreme Court has extended constitutional protections to corporate entities in a variety of contexts, the Supreme Court’s corporate constitutional jurisprudence currently lacks both a consistent image of corporate existence and a consistent mechanism to distinguish which constitutional rights corporations can exercise and which they cannot.  Drawing on both the Court’s jurisprudence as well as existing scholarship in the area, this Article argues a unifying framework can be achieved by tempering the three dominant theoretical conceptions of corporate existence, combining the resulting composite with agency-based contract principles, and then subjecting the yield to both a textual limitation and a functional limitation.

 

margolis_murrayEllie Margolis & Kristen Murray, Using Information Literacy to Prepare Practice-Ready Graduates

The Article addresses the difficult problem of preparing “practice ready” law graduates when the practice of law is rapidly changing as a result of new developments in technology.  Building upon their prior work on legal information literacy, Temple Law School Professors Ellie Margolis and Kristen Murray suggest a new way to think about how to prepare law students to be “practice ready” for the legal research and writing tasks they will face as they enter law practice, and how to equip them with the skills to communicate with older generations of lawyers while adapting to new and evolving technologies.

 

meganshanerMegan Wischmeier Shaner, The “Director Preference” in Stockholder Litigation

While corporations are managed by both directors and officers, stockholders exhibit a “director preference” when it comes to suing management for self-interested conduct such as breach of fiduciary duty.  Director preference undermines the benefit of stockholder litigation as a check on corporate officer conduct, especially given the authority of executive officers in a corporate management scheme.  University of Oklahoma Professor Megan Wischmeier Shaner examines possible explanations for the director preference, concluding that self-interest on the part of plaintiff’s attorneys is a controlling factor.

 

Karen Oehme, Anthony J. Ferraro, Nat Stern, Lisa S. Panisch & Mallory Lucier-Greer, Trauma-Informed Co-Parenting: How a Shift in Compulsory Divorce Education to Reflect New Brain Development Research Can Promote Both Parents’ and Children’s Best Interests

Many states, Hawaiʻi included, mandate that divorcing parents attend co-parenting classes.  The goal of this state intervention in the post-divorce family is to ensure that parents learn ways to minimize conflict between them and harm to their children.  While thousands of parents take these classes structured as “opportunity” for education and resources about building parental skills, recent discoveries about brain development and function in medical research have demonstrated that individuals’ history of trauma can have a profound impact on their emotional functioning, mental health, and physical welfare.  This multi-disciplinary team of authors from Florida State University, including School of Social Work Professor Karen Oehme and doctoral candidate Anthony J. Ferraro, College of Law Professor Nat Stern, M.S.W. candidate Lisa S. Panisch (not pictured), and Department of Family and Child Sciences Professor Mallory Lucier-Greer, argue that such education should include training on how to deal childhood trauma suffered as a result of a broken home.  Without ensuring that co-parent education is adequately “trauma-informed,” those states with compulsory education are missing an important opportunity to help parents understand why they may be struggling, learn the role of unresolved prior trauma in their lives, obtain resources, and protect themselves and their children from recurring trauma.

screen-shot-2016-10-09-at-8-44-33-pm


Student Comment

Sarah Nishioka, The “Grande Iced Nonfat Chai with a Shot of Espresso” Problem: Dealing with Designer Drugs in the Wake of Mcfadden v. United States

Sarah Nishioka, William S. Richardson School of Law Juris Doctor candidate (May 2017), argues that the federal government’s controlled substance scheduling scheme is incapable of regulating “designer drugs” — an ever-changing class of technically legal recreational substances.  Untested and untrackable, designer drugs have been the focus of media attention and governmental condemnation, but remain popular with people seeking a “legal high.”  This paper argues that current efforts to restrict and punish the supply of designer drugs are ineffective, and governments must focus on reducing their demand.