ILNews

Law School Briefs - 3/2/11

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Law School Briefs

Law school hosts poverty law event

The Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis, Neighborhood Christian Legal Clinic, and the Central Indiana Peace Corps Association hosted a poverty law event March 1 at the law school to discuss issues facing American families.

The event, “The Financial Crisis – Emerging Issues and Trends Faced by American Families” featured keynote speaker John Bouman, president of the Sargent Shriver National Center of Poverty Law. Bouman spoke about Sargent Shriver, founder of the center and first president of the United States Peace Corps program, and the 10 issues that need to be addressed to fight the war on poverty.

U.S. Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson introduced Bouman, and the legal clinic’s managing attorney Chris Purnell spoke about the core legal issues affecting impoverished people in central Indiana.

The event coincided with Peace Corps Week and the celebration of the organization’s 50th anniversary.

Pan-Asian conference to address democracy

Distinguished scholars from Indiana University, the Australian National University, and other institutions will address challenges to constitutional democracy in Asia March 4 to 5 during the symposium, “Difference and Constitutionalism in Asia.” The symposium will be held in the Moot Court Room of Indiana University Maurer School of Law, 211 S. Indiana Ave. in Bloomington. All panel discussions will be open to the public.

IU Maurer School of Law, the Institute for Advanced Study, the Office of the Vice President for International Affairs, the Center for the Study of the Middle East, the Center for Constitutional Democracy, the ANU-IU Pan Asia Institute at Indiana University, and the Australian National University will host the event.

Conference participants will discuss similarities and differences among constitutional democracies in Asia, as well as the changes to those countries since at least a dozen have proposed or adopted new constitutions or made important changes in existing constitutions over the last two decades.

Themes for the panel discussions are gender, ethnicity and race, the urban-rural divide, religion, and language. IU experts will be joined by panelists from Duke and Georgetown universities, the Australian National University, the University of Toronto, and the National Institute of Development Administration in Thailand. Organizers hope to contribute to building more stable and democratic governments in countries around the world.

Further details, including a conference program, can be found at http://iu.edu/~panasia/events/difference-and-constitutionalism-in-asia/. For more information, contact Melissa Biddinger, associate director of the ANU-IU Pan Asia Institute, at 812-855-0269 or mbidding@indiana.edu.

New class focuses on IP, museums, art

A new law course with a focus on art, museums, and publishing will begin this fall at Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis. The faculty approved the new course Feb. 15.

The class will be taught by intellectual property attorney Kenan Farrell, a solo practitioner in Indianapolis. It will be offered during the fall 2011 semester as an evening or Saturday course.

The course was requested by the Fashion Art and Design Law Society, which had its first meeting in November 2009 and currently has about 20 members. John R. Schaibley III, executive director of the Center for Intellectual Property Law and Innovation and adjunct professor of law, met with FAD officers who reviewed textbooks and proposed coursework, said FAD founding vice president, Erin Albert, a 3L student in the evening program.

While art law classes are taught at other law schools, a course on art, museum, and publishing law is rare, she said.•

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT