Unfair and Inactionable: The Case for a Private Cause of Action for Business and Investment Activity Under Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law

On November 19, 2014, in Tolle Lege Articles, by hmlenahan

By: Mark T. Wilhelm* Citation: 60 Vill. L. Rev. Tolle Lege 25 (2014) To view the article as a PDF, click here. I.  Introduction Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL)[1] was originally passed in 1968, with a focus on protecting Pennsylvania citizens from fraudulent and misleading commercial activity.[2] In 1996, the UTPCPL was […]

A Bridge to Nowhere: Exposing Competition and Pricing Regulations That Lead to Mismanagement and Waste in Government Contracting

On November 19, 2014, in Tolle Lege Articles, by hmlenahan

By: Jim R. Moye* Citation: 60 Vill. L. Rev. Tolle Lege 9 (2014) To view this article as a PDF, click here. “The Federal Government has an overriding obligation to American taxpayers. It should perform its functions efficiently and effectively while ensuring that its actions result in the best value for the taxpayers.”[1] I.  Introduction […]

“Whose” Game Is It? Sports-Wagering and Intellectual Property

On September 23, 2014, in Tolle Lege Articles, by hmlenahan

By: Ryan M. Rodenberg, Anastasios Kaburakis & John T. Holden In 1992, Congress passed the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), a statute designed to prevent the further spread of state-sponsored sports-wagering.[1] The statute’s language has the effect of granting a property right to sports leagues, implicating the Constitution’s Intellectual Property Clause.[2] The Intellectual Property […]

RFF Family Partnership, LP v. Burns & Levinson, LLP: Massachusetts Constructs a Functional Framework for In-Firm Privilege and Exposes Other States’ Need for Renovation

On July 19, 2014, in Tolle Lege Articles, by hmlenahan

By Kelsey Hughes-Blaum “In law, as in architecture, form should follow function, and we prefer a formulation of the attorney-client privilege that encourages attorneys faced with the threat of legal action by a client to seek the legal advice of in-house ethics counsel . . . .”