Modification of Long Term Prison Sentences

Below is the Black Letter from the Proposed Final Draft of Model Penal Code: Sentencing, which was approved at the 2017 Annual Meeting.  The project Reporters are now preparing the Institute’s official text for publication. The Reporters are authorized to correct and update citations and other references, to make editorial and stylistic improvements, and to implement any remaining substantive changes agreed to during discussion with the membership or by motions approved at the Annual Meetings. When published the Sections are being reorganized, Section 305.6 will become Section 11.02, and it will appear in an Appendix titled, “Principles for Legislations.”

Continue Reading

Empiricism and Privacy Policies in the Restatement of Consumer Contract Law and The Faulty Foundation of the Draft Restatement of Consumer Contracts

“Empiricism and Privacy Policies in the Restatement of Consumer Contract Law” (Empiricism) asks the wrong question and takes the wrong approach to answering that question. A second article in same issue of the Journal, “The Faulty Foundation of the Draft Restatement of Consumer Contracts” (Faulty Foundation) has similar flaws.  Both articles misconceive and overstate the role of “counting” in the preparation of the Restatement, as the Reporters emphasize that the Restatement follows the traditional  ALI approach, which is based on a broad review of court decisions.

Continue Reading

The Liability Insurance Restatement

In response to a recent story concerning opposition to The American Law Institute’s Restatement of the Law of Liability Insurance in the Texas state legislature, it appears that at least one sponsor owns an insurance agency, so I assume that some part of the insurance industry has been lobbying for this, even though the insurers and the sponsors have not even seen the final version of the Restatement.

Continue Reading

SCOTUS Cites Property 3d

The U.S. Supreme Court cited the Restatement of the Law Third, Property: Mortgages, in holding that a business that engaged in no more than the enforcement of a security interest—such as a law firm that pursued nonjudicial foreclosures on behalf of clients—was not a “debt collector” within the meaning of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6), except for the limited purpose of § 1692f, which prohibited entities from threatening to foreclose on a consumer’s home without having legal entitlement to do so.

Continue Reading