LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES AT 20: An Introduction

Apr 1, 2009 | Lead Articles, Number 3, Print Edition, Volume 42

Symposium—Limited Liability Companies at 20 Viewing the title of this Symposium and, in particular, its cadre of famous authors, one is inclined to ask:  what is special about the twenty-year-old limited liability company business form to draw such talent to Boston...

Morse v. Frederick One Year Later: New Limitations on Student Speech and the “Columbine Factor”

Apr 1, 2009 | Lead Articles, Number 3, Print Edition, Volume 42

When Justice Samuel Alito agreed with other members of the Supreme Court that a school principal could constitutionally prohibit a student from holding up a sign with the words “Bong Hits for Jesus,” he thought that the prohibition was limited to speech about illegal...

Through the Looking Glass: Status Liability and the Single Member and Series LLC Perspective

Apr 1, 2009 | Lead Articles, Number 3, Print Edition, Volume 42

Symposium—Limited Liability Companies at 20 Until the release of Revenue Ruling 88-76, only two states adopted limited liability company legislation, Wyoming in 1977 and Florida in 1982.  In 1975, Alaska rejected adoption of the first limited liability company...

The Plight of the Bare Naked Assignee

Apr 1, 2009 | Lead Articles, Number 3, Print Edition, Volume 42

Symposium—Limited Liability Companies at 20 In 1975, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decided what has since become an iconic case of the law of closely held corporations, Donahue v. Rodd Electrotype Company of New England, Inc.  The company, Rodd Electrotype,...

Administrative Law—Bureau of Prisons Statutory Mandate Permits Creation of Categorical Rules to Guide Prison Placement Discretion—Muniz v. Sabol, 517 F.3d 29 (1st Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 115 (2008)

Feb 1, 2009 | Case Comments, Number 2, Print Edition, Volume 42

First Circuit Review 2009 Congress delegates authority to the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to place inmates.  In determining inmate placement, the BOP must consider five individualized factors before selecting a suitable penal facility for each inmate.  In 2005, the BOP...

Civil Procedure—Complaint Amending Jurisdictional Basis Given Effect When Filed as a Matter of Right—ConnectU L.L.C. v. Zuckerberg, 522 F.3d 82 (1st Cir. 2008)

Feb 1, 2009 | Case Comments, Number 2, Print Edition, Volume 42

First Circuit Review 2009 Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a plaintiff to plead the basis for the court’s jurisdiction in his or her complaint.  Rule 15(a) allows a plaintiff to amend his or her complaint as a matter of right, provided that...