Washburn Law Journal
Editor's Note
Volume 45, No. 2 (Winter 2006)
View PDF Version (27 KB)
(requires requires Adobe Acrobat Reader)
The articles in this issue of the Washburn Law Journal were initiated by debates held as part of the Washburn University School of Law Symposium, Smith v. Van Gorkom: 20 Years Later. The symposium was sponsored by the Washburn Law School Business & Transactional Law Center, and the panelists debated issues regarding developments in a director's duty of care since the Delaware Supreme Court's landmark decision. This issue features the work of panelists Professor Henry N. Butler, Chapman University; Professor Lawrence A. Hamermesh, Widener University School of Law; Professor Cheryl L. Wade, St. John's University School of Law; and Dean and Professor Dennis R. Honabach and Professor Steven Ramirez, Washburn University School of Law.
The Washburn Law Journal is also honored to publish The Worthier Title Doctrine: Does Draft Restatement III of Property Write a Premature Obituary?, an essay by the Honorable Joseph W. Morris. In his essay, Judge Morris criticizes Draft Restatement III of Property for reversing the positions taken by the two prior restatements without acknowledging that the draft contradicts generations of legal scholars.
This issue contains three student notes. In her note, Whose Award Is It Anyway?: Implications of Awarding the Entire Sum of Punitive Damages to the State, Kelly-Rose Garrity contends that the negative aspects of split recovery statutes, which award a percentage of punitive damages to the state, will be exacerbated by statutes that award the entire amount of such damages to the state. In Conflicts of Conscience, Katherine A. James explores constitutional issues that arise when pharmacists, for religious reasons, refuse to fill birth control prescriptions. She advocates for a compromise that will balance the constitutional concerns of both pharmacists and patients. Addressing conflicts that have arisen since September 11 between the national defense and environmental law, Kristen D. Wheeler, in her note, Homeland Security and Environmental Regulation: Balancing Long-Term Environmental Goals with Immediate Security Needs, proposes a solution that will ensure national security while preserving environmental resources for the future.
This issue is completed by two student comments that discuss recent decisions from the Kansas Supreme Court. Ali N. Ketchum authors a comment arguing that the State should be allowed to rescind a plea agreement after a defendant successfully appeals his sentence. Bryn A. Poland contends in her comment that the Kansas Supreme Court's hostility toward legal Medicaid planning is unwarranted.
J.M.F.
