Mitchell Hamline School of Law

Amicus Curiae Blog
Mitchell Hamline Law Review

Amicus Curiae

The Amicus Curiae blog is a resource for everyone interested in recent happenings in law. We will share trending legal topics and thought-provoking pieces in all different areas of law. Some articles also provide advice to students or practicing attorneys.

If you are interested in writing a piece—new or in response to a current one—contact us at alicia.brenhaug@mitchellhamline.edu or joshua.numainville@mitchellhamline.edu.

Subscribe  

Professor Perspectives: Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue Sets Up A Religion Clause Collision

Posted: October 4, 2019
Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue
By Marie Failinger Marie A. Failinger is a professor of law at Mitchell Hamline School of Law. She was the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Law and Religion for more than 25 years, and has published books and articles on law and religion, including several focused on Lutheran theology and law. Background Espinoza v. Montana …

Professor Perspectives: Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue Sets Up A Religion Clause Collision

Writing Wrongs: The Common Legal Writing Mistakes of Law Students and Lawyers

Posted: September 12, 2019
Common Legal Writing Mistakes
By Peggy Kirkpatrick Peggy Kline Kirkpatrick is an adjunct writing professor in the Lawyering program at Mitchell Hamline, where she has taught for the past ten years. Her legal experience includes private practice in environmental, administrative, and land use law, and a clerkship at the Minnesota Court of Appeals. Peggy received her B.A., summa cum …

Writing Wrongs: The Common Legal Writing Mistakes of Law Students and Lawyers

Partisan Gerrymandering Claims After Rucho v. Common Cause: A Political Question Beyond the Court’s Reach

Posted: August 19, 2019
Rucho v. Common Cause
Written by Raleigh Levine, James E. Kelley Chair in Tort Law at Mitchell Hamline. Professor Levine teaches Mitchell Hamline’s Election Law class, which focuses on the constitutional and statutory regulation of the American electoral process. After decades in which a majority of the United States Supreme Court’s Justices repeatedly concluded that some partisan gerrymandering might …

Partisan Gerrymandering Claims After Rucho v. Common Cause: A Political Question Beyond the Court’s Reach

Twenty-first Amendment Gives Way to Dormant Commerce Clause in Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association v. Thomas

Posted: August 5, 2019
Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Ass'n v. Thomas
By Caleb Gerbitz, Head Managing Editor for the Mitchell Hamline Law Review Introduction One hundred years after prohibition began on January 16, 1919, its undoing still strains principles of federalism and constitutional interpretation. In Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Ass’n v. Thomas,[1] the authority of states to regulate alcohol under section 2 of the Twenty-first …

Twenty-first Amendment Gives Way to Dormant Commerce Clause in Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association v. Thomas

Amicus Curiae Podcast – Gateway to Legal Education with Dean Mark Gordon and Professor Barbara Colombo

Posted: May 17, 2019
Learn more about Mitchell Hamline School of Law’s Gateways to Legal Education initiative with Dean Gordon and Professor Colombo. Introduction (0:00 – 1:48) How was the program initiated? (1:49 – 7:29) Why the choice to do health care as the first course? (7:30 – 11:20) Was this an original model? (11:21 – 14:11) How is …

Amicus Curiae Podcast – Gateway to Legal Education with Dean Mark Gordon and Professor Barbara Colombo

Shoulder Injuries from Vaccines? – Separating Fact From Fiction

Posted: February 17, 2019
Written by Kathleen M Loucks, Attorney at Lommen Abdo, P.A. SIRVA “Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration” is compensated through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“VICP”) which is administered through the United States Court of Federal Claims in Washington, D.C.[1] Through the VICP, persons who have been injured by vaccines covered under the program can …

Shoulder Injuries from Vaccines? – Separating Fact From Fiction

Minnesota Supreme Court: Primary Assumption Of Risk Has Limited Reach

Posted: January 30, 2019
  Written by Mike Steenson, Bell Distinguished Professor of Law at Mitchell Hamline. In two unanimous opinions issued on January 25, 2019, the Minnesota Supreme Court retained the primary assumption of risk doctrine but narrowly confined its application, re-emphasized that the issue of whether intoxication is a proximate cause of an injury is generally a …

Minnesota Supreme Court: Primary Assumption Of Risk Has Limited Reach

The Minnesota Supreme Court Reverses Decision in Student Crash: Favors Allowing the Trier of Fact to Resolve Foreseeability Issues

Posted: December 5, 2018
  Article Written by Mike Steenson, Bell Distinguished Professor of Law at Mitchell Hamline. Fenrich v. The Blake School [1] is the third installment in a series of decisions by the Minnesota Supreme Court involving the foreseeability issue in a “close case.” Combined with Montemayor v. Sebright Products, Inc.,[2] and Senogles v. Carlson,[3] the trilogy effectively …

The Minnesota Supreme Court Reverses Decision in Student Crash: Favors Allowing the Trier of Fact to Resolve Foreseeability Issues

Mike Steenson: An Essay on Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

Posted: November 21, 2018
Article Overview Written by Mike Steenson, Bell Distinguished Professor of Law at Mitchell Hamline. The Supreme Court’s opinion in Masterpiece Cakeshop [1] is not by any means the culmination of the collision of religious beliefs and anti-discrimination laws, but really just the beginning. The Court’s seemingly narrow resolution of the case based on the Colorado Civil Rights …

Mike Steenson: An Essay on Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission