The Nebraska Law Review

A Legal-Conceptual Framework for the School-to-Prison Pipeline: Fewer Opportunities for Rehabilitation for Public School Students

Brian J. Fahey

I. Introduction

II. Three Models for Regulating Juvenile Conduct ... A. The Criminal Punishment Model ... 1. Rights Attendant to the Criminal Punishment Model ... 2. A Framework for Recognizing Criminal Punishment ... B. The Juvenile Justice Model ... 1. Rehabilitative Beginnings ... 2. Recognizing Due Process Rights in Juvenile Justice ... 3. A Retributive Renaissance in Juvenile Courts ... C. The School Discipline Model ... 1. Sparse Constitutional Origins ... 2. Students’ Rights and Punishment in Schools ... a. Goss v. Lopez ... b. Ingraham v. Wright ... 3. What Goss and Ingraham Tell Us about Students’ Rights in School

III. The School-to-Prison Pipeline ... A. Zero-Tolerance Policies ... B. Referral of Students to the Juvenile System for Misconduct in School ... C. The Rise of the School Resource Officer

IV. The Negative Consequences of the Pipeline ... A. Counterproductive Results ... B. Disproportionate Effect on Minority and Learning-Disabled Students ... C. Discipline without a Purpose

V. Conclusion


Giving Birth under the ACA: Analyzing the Use of Law as a Tool to Improve Health Care

Elizabeth Kukura

I. Introduction

II. Overview of Maternity Care in the United States ... A. High Costs and Poor Outcomes: Demonstrating the Urgent Need for Maternity Care Reform ... B. Understanding the Landscape of Childbirth

III. The ACA and Maternity Care ... A. The ACA’s Significant Expansion of Access to Maternity Coverage ... 1. ACA Reforms that Apply Regardless of Coverage Source ... 2. ACA Reforms That Apply to Particular Modes of Coverage ... a. Individual Market ... b. Medicaid ... B. The ACA’s Improvement of Maternity Care Benefits ... 1. ACA Reforms That Apply Regardless of Coverage Source ... 2. ACA Reforms That Apply to Particular Modes of Coverage ... a. Individual Market ... b. Private Insurance (Individual and Employer-Sponsored) ... c. Medicaid (and Medicare) ... C. The ACA’s Investments in Better Care through Programmatic and Policy Initiatives

IV. Assessing the ACA’s Impact on Maternity Care: Enhancing Coverage without Shifting Culture ... A. The Need for Payment Reform in Maternity Care ... B. Improving Outcomes Requires Practicing Evidence-Based Maternity Care ... C. Transforming Birth by Elevating Midwives as Primary Maternity Care Providers

V. Conclusion: Reflections on Law as a Tool to Improve Health Care


An Infamous Case: How the Iowa Supreme Court’s Minimalist Approach Forced Everyone to Come Back for More in Chiodo v. Section 43.24 Panel, 846 N.W.2d 845 (Iowa 2014)

Michael S. Boal

I. Introduction

II. Background ... A. Chiodo v. Section 43.24 Panel Facts ... B. Chiodo v. Section 43.24 Panel Opinions ... C. Judicial Minimalism

III. Analysis ... A. Dual Disorder: Two Levels of Minimalism ... B. More Harm than Good: Four Indicators ... 1. Final Arbiter of Constitutional Rights ... 2. Application of Stare Decisis ... 3. Repeat Players and Institutional Relationships ... 4. Increased Future Litigation

IV. Conclusion


Judicial Bypass in Nebraska: How the Nebraska Supreme Court’s Decision in In re Anonymous 5, 286 Neb. 640, 838 N.W.2d 226 (2013) Illustrates the Complexity of Parental Consent Laws for State Wards Seeking Abortion

Amy J. Peters

I. Introduction

II. Background ... A. Parental Consent Laws for Minors Seeking Abortion ... B. Teen Pregnancy and Abortion in Foster Care ... C. Nebraska’s Parental Consent Law and the Supreme Court’s Holding in Anonymous 5

III. Analysis ... A. Nebraska’s Parental Consent Law Grants Judges an Impermissible, “Absolute, and Possibly Arbitrary, Veto” over a State Ward’s Access to Abortion ... B. Nebraska’s Parental Consent Law Imposes an Undue Burden on State Wards Seeking an Abortion ... C. Nebraska’s Abortion Law Needs Reform to Clarify Parental Consent Requirements and Judicial Bypass Considerations for State Wards ... 1. Consent Requirements ... 2. Judicial Bypass Considerations

IV. Conclusion


Standing on Thin Ice: How Nebraska’s Standing Doctrine Prevents the Majority of Surface Water Users from Obtaining Judicial Relief against Groundwater Users Interfering with Their Appropriations

Logan Hoyt

I. Introduction

II. Background ... A. Water Development in Nebraska ... B. Spear T Ranch, Inc. v. Knaub ... C. Introduction to Standing Doctrine

III. Standing in Water Law Cases ... A. Natural Resource Districts and Standing to Challenge Governmental Actions ... B. Surface Water Entities and Standing ... C. Contrast between Natural Resources District Standing Cases and Central ... D. Nebraska’s Standing Doctrine Prevents Most Surface Water Users from Obtaining Relief

IV. Is It Good Public Policy to Allow Surface Water Users to Pursue Judicial Relief? ... A. Arguments in Favor of Judicial Intervention ... B. Arguments against Allowing Surface Water Irrigators to Obtain Judicial Relief ... C. Policy Summary

V. If Surface Water Irrigators Should Be Able to Sue, What Changes Can Be Made? ... A. Legislative Intervention ... B. Judicial Intervention

VI. Conclusion


Practice and Procedure before the Nebraska State Railway Commission

J. Max Harding

I. Introduction

II. The Original or Extension Application

III. The Transfer Application

IV. Orders to Show Cause and Formal Complaints

V. After the Hearing

VI. Conclusion


Inconsistent Jury Verdicts in Civil Actions

John C. McElhaney

I. Vicarious Liability of Co-Defendant … A. General Problem and Solution … B. Joint Tortfeasors as Defendants … C. Indemnity Cases … D. The Comparative Negligence Doctrine

II. Derivative Causes of Action … A. General Problem and Solution … B. Power to Grant a New Trial … C. Who May Complain of the Inconsistency

III. Separate Cases Consolidated for Trial … A. General Problem and Solution … B. The Right to a Jury Trial

IV. Other Related Fact Situations

V. General Comments on Inconsistencies … A. Reconciliation of Apparent Inconsistencies in the Verdicts … B. Validity of General Verdicts Based on Alternative Pleas … C. Verdicts Which Are Silent as to One Party Defendant

VI. Conclusion