Category Archives: Featured Article

UMLR Alumni Advisory Board Member Featured in Daily Business Review

UMLR would like to highlight one of its Alumni Advisory Board members, Peter Prieto, for being featured in the August 29, 2016 edition of the Daily Business Review. The publication wrote a piece about Prieto in its “Profiles in Law” section. The article is titled, “Prieto Plays at Top of His Profession in High-Profile MDL […]

Griswold, Geduldig, and Hobby Lobby: The Sex Gap Continues

MAYA MANIAN,* 69 U. Miami L. Rev. Caveat 17 (2015). In response to Mary Ziegler, The (Non)-Right to Sex, 69 U. Miami L. Rev. 631 (2015). I. Introduction In her article, The (Non)-Right to Sex, Professor Mary Ziegler excavates the fascinating legal history of the “sex gap”—the historical failure to address sexual liberty—in the constitutional canon and offers an important cautionary tale for contemporary advocacy […]

Foreword: The Evolution of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals: A New Era of Diversity on the Bench

BY HON. URSULA UNGARO, 69 U. Miami L. Rev. 929 (2015). Foreword: From a historical perspective, 2014 was a pivotal year for the youngest circuit court in the nation. Within a four-month period, three new judges were confirmed and sworn in to serve on the Eleventh Circuit—all having clerked for distinguished Eleventh Circuit judges and all of them women. […]

Because of Winn-Dixie: The Common Law of Exclusive Use Covenants

BY TANYA D. MARSH, 69 U. Miami L. Rev. 935 (2015). Introduction: As a condition of entering into a lease for space in a shopping center, tenants with significant bargaining power often require landlords to promise that no other occupant of the shopping center will sell certain goods or services. This promise, contained in the lease, is known as […]

Giving Judge Tjoflat’s Deference Analysis Its Due

BY JONATHAN D. COLAN, 69 U. Miami L. Rev. 973 (2015). Introduction: In United States v. Williams, Judge Gerald Bard Tjoflat sought to clarify the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e)’s “due deference” standard and to fix, what he considered to be, the Eleventh Circuit’s inconsistent application of this provision in federal criminal sentencing appeals. Judge Tjoflat’s mission failed. […]