ETHICAL AND STATUTORY LIMITATIONS ON ATHLETE AGENT INCOME: FEES, REFERRALS, AND OWNERSHIP INTERESTS
Diane Sudia and Rob Remis
Athlete agents find themselves increasingly regulated, as twenty-eight states regulate numerous aspects of agent conduct. Civil, administrative, and criminal penalties exist for violations of the statutes, depending on the state involved. Again, depending on the state, athlete agents must also adhere to various registration and reporting requirements. Arguably, however, many of these statutes are unconstitutional, at least in part, and contain numerous loopholes or exemptions that should make it relatively easy for an athlete agent to escape civil and criminal liability under existing athlete agent statutes. Another issue that arises, and which this Article answers, is exactly what restrictions on fees, referrals, and ownership interests the states legislatively impose on athlete agents.
PROTECTING THE PUBLIC’S RIGHT TO KNOW: THE DEBATE OVER PRIVATIZATION AND ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT INFORMATION UNDER STATE LAW
Craig D. Feiser
In recent years, the rising cost of government has caused a debate over the advantages and disadvantages of privatizing government services. While some call privatization a panacea of efficiency, others worry about potential public sacrifices. Among these worries is the fear that unless access-to-information statutes can be extended to cover private entities, privatization will undermine the public’s right to know. This is because most state statutes providing for freedom of access to government documents do not explicitly grant access to documents that are in the hands of private entities. Without legislative or judicial intervention interpreting these statutes broadly, most state governments could effectively transfer their documents into the hands of private companies and avoid the reach of freedom of information acts.
PRECIOUS LITTLE GUIDANCE TO THE “GATEKEEPERS” REGARDING ADMISSIBILITY OF NONSCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE: AN ANALYSIS OF KUMHO TIRE CO. V. CARMICHAEL
Jeffrey M. Schumm
The key holding of the United States Supreme Court in Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael is that a federal trial judge’s “gatekeeping” function under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, as enunciated in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., applies to all expert testimony, not just scientific testimony. The Court further ruled that the four factors it identified in Daubert may apply to the testimony of experts outside of scientific testimony, but these reliability factors are not to be regarded as definitive checklists or tests: “Daubert’s list of specific factors neither necessarily nor exclusively applies to all experts or in every case.” Accordingly, federal judges are now gatekeepers when it comes to deciding the admissibility of all expert evidence and, apparently, may utilize whatever reliability guidelines they choose. Lumping all experts together (be they scientific or nonscientific) under the Daubert regime of reliability, however, has enormous potential for causing considerable chaos in the federal courts.
POWELL V. STATE: AN AUSPICIOUS DECISION IN A CULTURE OF AFFECTIONAL/SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION
To most Americans, children, marriage, adoption, and secure employment are mundane concepts–simply a part of life. For Betty Doe, however, these concepts remain unattainable. Betty, a law-abiding citizen, has been denied access to each of these American institutions. When her employer found out that she was getting married, she was fired. When she and her spouse tried to adopt a child, the state assumed that they engaged in conjugal relations and accordingly denied the adoption. Upon her spouse’s death, intestate, Betty was disallowed access to her spouse’s estate. At first glance, Betty’s scenario likely appears illogical, irrational, and illegal; however, if Betty Doe is a lesbian, these denials are commonplace and expected.