The Nebraska Law Review

White Papers

rgerlach

In addition to commentaries, the Bulletin will also publish “white papers.” These papers come from a number of student sources; they could be seminar papers, class papers, or case notes that have not yet been selected for publication. The Bulletin‘s goal in publishing these materials is to provide practitioners with the background research that was done for the paper. The Bulletin hopes to create a depository of research that was done for different purposes. These papers do not undergo any substantial editing by the staff prior to publication.  There is no word limit on these papers.  The Bulletin does request that White Paper submissions focus on Nebraska and Eighth Circuit issues.


Keystone XL and Nebraska’s Judicial Supermajority Clause: A Brief Introduction

bhildebrand

Many are familiar with the Keystone XL due to the political controversy surrounding the pipeline.  Of central relevance to Nebraska, it is difficult to open a newspaper, scroll through a Twitter feed, or discuss environmental issues without the topic rising to the forefront of conversation.  However, what many people are unaware of is Nebraska’s judicial supermajority clause.  This affects not only LB 1161, which changed the pipeline permitting process in Nebraska, but any state statute challenged on constitutional grounds.  Kathleen Miller, J.D. Candidate, 2016, offers insight into this often forgotten area of particular peculiarity in Nebraska and its effect on Keystone XL.  Katie’s article,  may be found here and directly linked to from the Bulletin.  The Bulletin welcomes any response, counter or commentary which may be forwarded to the Online Editor.

 

 


Disability Discrimination in the Form of Ad Hoc Examinations: A Brief Introduction

bhildebrand

Nearly every Employment Law casebook, course, and lecture includes at least some mention of the Americans with Disabilities Act.  In addition to the ADA, the Nebraska Fair Employment Practice Act prohibits discrimination in the workplace.  Under either Act, an employer-mandated medical examination of an individual with disabilities is presumed to be unlawful discrimination.  Thomas E. Simmons, an associate professor at the University of South Dakota School of Law, examines the business necessity defense available to rebut this presumption as articulated by the Nebraska Supreme Court in Arens v. NEBCO, Inc.  Professor Simmons’ article may be found here and directly linked to from the Bulletin.  The Bulletin welcomes any response, counter or commentary which may be forwarded to the Online Editor.