Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog

What Price Protest?

Post author:Edward A. Fallone
Post published:December 3, 2011
Post category:Civil Rights Constitutional Interpretation First Amendment Poverty & Law Public U.S. Supreme Court

On December 1, the Wisconsin Department of Administration released new rules governing access to state facilities, including the State Capitol, for protests, rallies, demonstrations and any other “gathering of four or more people for the purpose of actively promoting any cause.” You may read the entire policy here.

The most controversial aspects of the new policy are the fact that it applies to small groups of individuals (four or more), the fact that it would require the filing of a permit application 72 hours in advance of any planned event, and the fact that it allows the state to require the advance payment of a bond to cover security costs when such payment is determined to be necessary by the State Capitol Police. The rules contain an exception to these requirements for a defined category of “spontaneous events.”

The Need to Understand Course Material

Post author:Carolyn Edwards
Post published:December 3, 2011
Post category:Legal Education Marquette Law School Public

[Editor’s Note: This month, faculty members are posting on their exam taking tips. This is the second post in the series.]

Law students dread the exam process. This feeling is no surprise given the fact that in many courses examination grades become final grades. Unfortunately, agreement on a simple technique that maximizes effective learning does not exist. But there is some agreement on pitfalls that every student should avoid during times of study and review. One pitfall is failing to process and understand course material. It is so easy to simply turn the pages of a textbook or stare at a course outline that appears on a computer screen and then conclude: “I understand this topic. It’s clear as can be and I don’t need to review it again.”

Shareholder “Say on Pay” – Can it Expose Directors to Liability?

Post author:Nadelle E. Grossman
Post published:December 2, 2011
Post category:Corporate Law Public

[Editor’s Note: Over the past month, faculty members have been posting on upcoming judicial decisions of particular interest. This is the fourth post in the series.]

In January of 2011, the Securities and Exchange Commission, as part of its implementation of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, began requiring U.S. public companies to provide their shareholders with a non-binding vote on the compensation of certain executive officers. This “say on pay” gives shareholders an advisory say on the amount of compensation paid to those executives. Related disclosure is also designed to prompt the board to consider how the “say on pay” vote affects its broader executive compensation policies and practices.

The Dodd-Frank Act specifically provides that the shareholder say-on-pay vote is not intended to affect directors’ fiduciary duties. Despite this, in at least two cases, shareholders have sued directors for breaches of their fiduciary duties, primarily on the basis that they implemented compensation practices that shareholder had voted against.