Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog

MU Team Excels at Corporate Law Moot Court Competition

Post author:Edward A. Fallone
Post published:March 13, 2016
Post category:Corporate Law Marquette Law School Public Uncategorized

Congratulations to the team representing Marquette University Law School at the Ruby R. Vale Interschool Corporate Law Moot Court Competition in Delaware this past week. Kyle Thelen, Alex Ackerman and Samuel Casson were awarded “Best Brief” at the competition and advanced to the Quarter Finals, where the judges deliberated for a full 45 minutes before declaring that our Team was edged out “by less than a razor thin margin.” All in all, it was an outstanding performance. Thank you to the Team, for all of their hard work, and to all of the faculty and students who helped the Team in its preparations.

Photo: Ruby R. Vale

County Exec Debate Presents Big Differences in Level-Headed Ways

Post author:Alan J. Borsuk
Post published:March 10, 2016
Post category:Milwaukee Political Processes & Rhetoric Public Speakers at Marquette

Chris Abele and Chris Larson have big differences and their race for Milwaukee County executive is intensely contested.

But their one-hour debate at Eckstein Hall Thursday evening, broadcast live by WISN (Channel 12), was an even-tempered and unflashy presentation of their positions on many of the specific issues and their general approach to what the county executive should do in the next four years. In other words, it was a good way for voters in large numbers, given the television audience, to get a direct view of what the candidates say, as well as some impression of how the two handle themselves.

This is a time when people nationwide have been getting heavy doses of insults, sharp personal attacks, and posturing in debates between the candidates for president. That makes for more entertaining events, “better’ television,” and more lively material for reporters and commentators to write about. But it also leaves many people (count me in) wondering: Has political dialogue come to this?

So consider this praise of the candidates, of Mike Gousha, Marquette Law School’s distinguished fellow in law and public policy who moderated the debate, and of WISN for making serious discussion between candidates the focus of a debate and for making it available to the general public.

Full Faith and Credit for Adoption

Post author:Judith G. McMullen
Post published:March 9, 2016
Post category:Family Law Public

On Monday, the United States Supreme Court issued a summary disposition reversing the judgment of the Alabama Supreme Court in V.L. v. E.L. (577 U.S. ___ (2016)) In that case, two women had been in a committed relationship with each other for over 15 years. While they were together, E.L. gave birth to three children through assisted reproductive technology, and she and V.L. raised the children together. At some point thereafter, V.L. formally adopted the children in Georgia, with the express consent of E.L. who retained her own parental rights. The Georgia court entered a final decree of adoption recognizing both women as parents to the children.

In 2011, V.L. and E.L. split up while living in Alabama, and shortly thereafter V.L filed a petition in circuit court alleging that her former partner was denying her access to the children. She asked the Alabama court to register the Georgia adoption, and to grant her some custody or visitation rights. The circuit court granted visitation, and E.L. appealed, claiming that Georgia lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to enter the decree of adoption. The Court of Civil Appeals rejected the jurisdictional argument, but did remand the case with directions to the family court to hold an evidentiary hearing before awarding visitation rights to V.L. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed, holding that Alabama was not required to accord full faith and credit to the Georgia judgment because Georgia did not have subject-matter jurisdiction to allow V.L. to adopt the children while E.L retained her parental rights.

In its per curiam opinion reversing the Alabama Supreme Court decision, SCOTUS emphasized that states are required to afford full faith and credit to a judgment unless that judgment was rendered by a court that “did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter or the relevant parties.” Although a court can look into whether a foreign court had jurisdiction, jurisdiction is presumed if the judgment is one of a court of general jurisdiction, and the presumption cannot be rebutted simply because a foreign court disagrees with the outcome of a case.