Photo Credit: Sara Williams
Cumberland’s National Trial Teams won each round they competed in for Region 8 of the National Trial Competition! Law Review members Trent Testa (3L) and Kate Belyayeva (2L) both competed in this competition and are advancing to Nationals in April. The teams were coached by Judge Jim Roberts, Sara Williams, and Craig Shirley.
Congratulations to Law Review member Allison Lowery (2L) for placing in the top eight teams in the American Bar Association’s National Negotiation Competition, hosted the weekend of February 5th! Allison and partner Dylan Martin (3L) advanced to Nationals after competing in this Fall’s regional competition.
This team was coached by Ben Warren, Kevin Bufford, and Thomas Thorneycroft.
Photo Credit: https://perma.cc/R9HC-4DNL
In her casenote chosen for online publication, Junior Editor Amanda Nelson discusses the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc. and prior precedent on the issue of whether a showing of willfulness was a precondition to be awarded profits in a suit for trademark infringement. The ruling in Romag is particularly significant, as it settles a longstanding split among the circuit courts—at the time Romag was decided, half of the geographic circuits required a plaintiff to prove willful infringement in order to obtain a profits award while the other half did not.
Photo Credit: https://perma.cc/RD9D-E4N5
In Wood v. Raffensperger, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit addressed whether it had jurisdiction over an appeal from the denial of a Georgia voter’s request for emergency relief following the 2020 United States presidential election. A Georgia voter alleged that the absentee ballot and recount procedures violated existing Georgia law as well as his federal constitutional rights. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the District Court’s denial of the voter’s request for emergency relief for lack of standing and mootness and ruled that it did not have jurisdiction over post-election contests involving “issues of vote counting and misconduct that may be properly filed in state courts.” The Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Wood shows that federal courts are not willing to allow voters to tie state law claims into federal claims to gain relief against state officials.
Photo Credit: https://perma.cc/8PSR-SQA7
In Ronning v. Commissioner, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit addressed the differences between an accrual-method taxpayer and a cash-method taxpayer. After the IRS determined that a taxpayer, Scott Ronning (“Ronning”), owed a significant amount in back taxes and penalties, the Tax Court calculated the amount owed based on a finding that Ronning was a cash-method taxpayer. Considering this evidence, the Eleventh Circuit held that the “Tax Court’s finding that Ronning was a cash-method taxpayer was not clearly erroneous. With their decision in Ronning, the court showed deference to the decision of the Tax Court. However, in its step-by-step analysis, the Eleventh Circuit made clear that a taxpayer could provide sufficient evidence for the court to determine the Tax Court erred in its determination of a taxpayer’s methodology.
Photo Credit: https://perma.cc/V756-DHAF
Please congratulate the following Cumberland Law Review Members for being named Scholars of Merit and receiving CALI Awards for the 2020 Fall Semester! Students who qualify as Scholars of Merit and receive CALI Awards have been recognized by their professors to have written the best exam or were deemed overall superior in that course.
Robert Adams – Business Organizations
Cullen Armstrong – Nonprofit Corp-Law & Govern
Kate Belyayeva – Constitutional Law I; Mergers & Acquisitions
Lauren Brasher – Employment Law
Mitchell Brisbon – Constitutional Law I
Ben Brown – Advanced Evidence
Katelyn Dodd – Workers’ Compensation
Taylor Johnson – Appellate Advocacy; Torts II
Stephanie Lynge – Domestic Relations
Caroline McLeroy – Employment Law
Michael Miaoulis – Business Organizations
Kaylee Rose – Professional Responsibilities
Trent Testa – E-Discovery/Digital Evidence
Gabe Tucker – Administrative Law; Criminal Procedure I; Municipal Courts
The Cumberland Law Review is excited to announce our upcoming annual Symposium!
The event will be held virtually this year on Friday, February 26! This year’s theme is “Alternative Dispute Resolution and Advocacy: Insights and Strategies for the Modern Advocate.” We have an impressive panel of speakers who will be sharing must-know ADR insights.
Best of all, attorneys who attend will receive 3 FREE CLE credits! Register by emailing email@example.com.
Photo Credit: https://perma.cc/XQ5W-56NV
In Berisha v. Lawson, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit addressed a defamation suit brought by Shkelzen Berisha (“Berisha”), the son of Albania’s former Prime Minister, against a United States author, Guy Lawson (“Lawson”). In analyzing the defamation claim, the court considered whether Berisha was a limited public figure in this circumstance, and, if so, whether he had to prove that Lawson acted with actual malice. The court also expanded on the employee-equivalent theory as it relates to an independent contractor’s ability to claim attorney-client privilege for communications when the contractor is not a traditional employee. The importance of the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling in Berisha v. Lawson is two-fold: (1) it upholds the importance of the First Amendment within the judicial system, even when a public figure is an involved party; and (2) it brings further definition to the Supreme Court’s holding that the attorney-client privilege can be expanded to include non-traditional employees.
Photo Credit: https://perma.cc/BE4J-G358
Meredith Smith Taylor*
In Collier v. Harland Clarke Corp., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit addressed a claim brought by a sixty-one-year-old terminated employee against his employer alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (the “ADEA”), and Alabama privacy law. Although the Eleventh Circuit expressed sympathy for Collier in his termination, the court held the district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the employer because there were no genuine issues of material fact for any of Collier’s claims. Collier is significant in the employment discrimination context because it reaffirms the notion that in order to survive summary judgment, a plaintiff must provide enough evidence to establish a prima facie case of discrimination and an employer’s discriminatory intent beyond mere speculation.
Photo Credit: https://perma.cc/6VG9-53PB
In Williams v. Aguirre, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit addressed whether qualified and state immunity applied to a malicious prosecution claim brought by an arrestee. An individual alleged he was maliciously prosecuted for attempted murder of a police officer after the police officer shot him. Aguirre answers questions on the availability of both qualified and state-agent immunity to police officers. In deciding this case, the Eleventh Circuit considered constitutional and state law to determine that the officers were not entitled to either form of immunity and that the district court did not err in denying the officers’ motion for summary judgment.