The Honorable V. Stuart Couch
Page: 1
A coffee cup sits on Professor Tom Anderson's desk with the following
words inscribed on it: "You may be whatever you resolve to be." I
know that cup and the saying quite well; it is a gift from me with the inspirational
words of General "Stonewall" Jackson, given in recognition of our
shared interest in Civil War history and my appreciation for Tom's role as
my mentor while I was a student at Campbell Law School. In recognition
of Professor Anderson's retirement from the faculty after twenty-nine
years, I reflect on his successful fulfillment of Jackson's sage words and
how he resolved to be a teacher, a mentor, and a friend in the lives of his
colleagues and many students who have all shared the privilege of his presence
in our lives.
Norma Barnes-Euresti
Page: 5
It is my great honor and privilege to recognize Professor Lord on his
retirement from the Norman Adrian Wiggins School of Law at Campbell
University after more than twenty-eight years of service. Professor Lord
has been a pivotal figure in the law school, and he must be credited for his
contribution to the formation of thousands of outstanding lawyers through
his classes and coaching of Campbells moot court teams. He has played a
huge role in my development as a lawyer, and I am grateful that I have
been given this space to thank him on behalf of myself and the countless
others he influenced and inspired.
THOMAS H. BURRELL
Page: 7
Commentators often advocate that the privileges and immunities language
found in the United States Constitution represents authority for some
right along the spectrum of natural law, the Bill of Rights, or fundamental
law in general.1 This Article provides contextual background for the argument
by examining medieval royal privileges and immunities and tracing
the crowns charter to the American colonies and the United States Constitution.
This Article goes beyond merely providing a short background for
the use of the language in revolutionary pamphlets and the U.S. Constitution;
rather, this Article discusses the concept of royal privileges and immunities
and traces its growth in England and influence on the colonies.
Along the way, useful comparisons are made between English institutions
and American institutions.
BRETT IRA JOHNSON
Page: 125
A products unregistered trade dress is protected against infringement
by section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).1 Trade
dress refers to the image and overall appearance of a product. It embodies
that arrangement of identifying characteristics or decorations connected
with a product, whether by packaging or otherwise, [that] make[s] the
source of the product distinguishable from another and . . . promote[s] its
sale.2 Trade dress may include features such as size, shape, color or color
combinations, texture, graphics, or even particular sales techniques.3 In
order to recover for trade dress infringement under section 43(a), a party
must prove that: (1) the trade dress in question is distinctive in the marketplace,
thereby indicating the source of the good it dresses; (2) the trade
dress is primarily nonfunctional;4 and (3) the trade dress of the competing
good is confusingly similar.5
ARTHUR J. PARK
Page: 155
The current default judgment system is filled with problems. Default
judgments are routinely set aside based upon the partys excusable neglect
1 for failing to timely answer. In such cases, the defaulting partys
negligence is essentially condoned because the non-defaulting party is not
properly compensated for the delay and the defaulting party is not adequately
reprimanded. Even after obtaining a default judgment, the nondefaulting
party may have its victory disappear if a motion to set aside is
filed shortly thereafter. On the other hand, some parties involved in litigation
are ambushed with a default based on improper service. By sitting on
the judgment without giving notice or attempting to collect, the nondefaulting
party can even manipulate the one-year cutoff date in Rule 60 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding the arguments that can be
made in the motion to set aside.2 Fortunately, there are some simple solutions
to improve the default judgment framework.
Devon D. Williams
Page: 181
All great medical phenomena begin as a rarity, taking years to increase
in numbers and success storiesif in fact they ever do. These medical
marvels initially shock the mind of an average citizen if he or she is
even aware the marvel exists and is medically possible. Such is the case
with postmortem sperm retrieval (PMSR). PMSR involves extracting
spermor gametic materialfrom a recently deceased male for the purpose
of impregnating a woman, presumably his surviving wife, and conceiving
a child with her after his death.2 Most often, the extracted sperm is
frozen for future use.3
PMSR, however, is
Rosemary J. Matthews
Page: 205
Joe Smith is an experienced mediator and well-respected attorney in
his county.1 He usually mediates divorce settlements, priding himself on a
nearly eighty percent settlement rate.2 Smith was recently hired to mediate
a settlement between a couple that was heading for an ugly court battle.
The attorney for the husband, a younger attorney who clearly looked up to
Smith, confided in Smith that he had advised the husband to conceal from
the wife the existence of a mutual fund account that was performing extremely
well. The attorney joked with Smith about how he was putting
one over on the wife, and that the mutual fund had been transferred into
the name of a paralegal in order to avoid detection by the wife or her attorney.
