October 23, 2012

Vol. 33, No. 2, Spring 2001

The Urban Lawyer,
Vol. 33, No. 2, Spring 2001

Publication Date:July 6, 2001

Robert W. Doty, Municipal Finance Advising, Part I: Fiduciary Relationships of Municipal Finance Advisors with Their Issuer Clients, 33 URB. LAW. 225 (Spring 2001).
This article examines preliminarily specific applications of law, and certain potential implications, in the area of fiduciary relationships. The authorities examined are derived from SEC releases, administrative law decisions, and decisions in three federal circuits. The article is not intended to constitute an exhaustive treatment of the subject of fiduciary relationships or breaches of fiduciary duty, either in the context examined or as applicable to other contexts. Among other things, it examines state law only peripherally, as federal precedents cite and apply it.

Robert W. Doty, Municipal Finance Advising, Part II: Managing Relationships of Municipal Finance Advisors with Issuers, 33 URB. LAW. 259 (Spring 2001).
The functions of this article are to outline briefly certain relevant issues, to identify certain relevant authorities, and to suggest for consideration appropriate courses of behavior concerning fiduciary relationships of municipal finance professionals with their issuer clients. In addition, the article poses a number of questions regarding interpretation and application in practice of Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board Rule G-23. That rule, together with MSRB Rule G-17, regulates, in certain respects, activities of dealers as financial advisors and, in the case of Rule G-23, treats the subject of certain potential conflicts of interest. This article is a preliminary examination of the subject matter, in that it is not exhaustive and much of the analysis herein is intended to lead to further consideration.

Edward J. Sullivan, Emperors and Clothes: The Genealogy and Operation of the Agins' Tests, 33 URB. LAW. 343 (Spring 2001).
This article is a critique of the Supreme Court's decision in Agins v. City of Tiburon, a case that has been relied upon to expand the doctrine of takings as applied to land-use regulation. It attempts to demonstrate that the Agins Court failed to provide a narrower and more definite test than Penn Central. In tracing the origins of Agins, it considers the emergence, basis, and rewriting of the takings doctrine in the Constitution and the effect of a substantive due process approach to land-use regulation. It then considers the way in which Agins reformulated the fundamental errors of 100 years into a two-factor test and an unexamined reliance on that test to develop takings law.

Phyllis Coleman & Robert M. Jarvis, Road Rage, 33 URB. LAW. 383 (Spring 2001).
While some experts view road rage as nothing more than a calculated bid to avoid liability for a bad temper, others claim it is a legitimate disorder that should be recognized as a mental illness. Surprisingly, road rage has managed to escape the notice of law review writers. To fill the gap, Part II of this article profiles the road rage phenomenon. Part III looks at the growing number of court cases involving road rage. Part IV describes Intermittent Explosive Disorder (IED), a psychiatric diagnosis which might explain why some motorists cannot suppress the urge to strike out and cause injury. The article concludes by suggesting when IED is present, courts should be receptive to its use as a defense in road rage cases.

Douglas T. Kendall, Timothy J. Dowling & Andrew W. Schwartz, Choice of Forum and Finality Ripeness: The Unappreciated Hot Topics in Regulatory Takings Cases, 33 URB. LAW. 405 (Spring 2001).
While substantive questions concerning what is and is not a regulatory taking continue to dominate Takings Clause scholarship, procedural issues such as ripeness, choice of forum, and preclusion are the hottest topics in takings litigation. This article addresses these unappreciated takings topics. Section I discusses the appropriate forum for litigating a regulatory takings challenge to state or local government action and examines the requirement under Williamson County that landowners first seek compensation in state court before filing a federal takings claim in federal court. It also explains how this requirement intersects with claim and issue preclusion and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Section II discusses the finality ripeness requirements established in Williamson County and its progeny.

Yair Listokin, Confronting the Barriers to Native American Homeownership on Tribal Lands: The Case of the Navajo Partnership for Housing, 33 URB. LAW. 433 (Spring 2001).
Native Americans living on reservations suffer severe housing distress. This climate is changing, however; new loan products, new attitudes, and new priorities are combining to make mortgage lending and homeownership more viable for Native Americans. On the Navajo reservation, this endeavor is being led by a nonprofit organization, the Navajo Partnership for Housing (NPH). To better understand the complex challenges facing NPH, This article presents background information on Native Americans generally, and the Navajo specifically, by describing the multiple obstacles to homeownership on the Navajo reservation. The discussion is based on research conducted from 1997 through 1999 and builds from, and adopts portions of, earlier research conducted for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Cases, Statutes, Recent Developments on

Fourth Amendment, 477

City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 121 S. Ct. 447 (2000)

ERISA, 477

Pegram v. Herdrich, 530 S. Ct. 211 (2000)