Here is a hope­fully use­ful excerpt from a foot­note in my Law Review arti­cle. It’s not the whole foot­note, and I’m not going to share the entire arti­cle for at least some time, as I have other plans for it. But this one foot­note, the result of many, many hours of research, could be use­ful to oth­ers and I thought I would share it. (For those who are inter­ested, the arti­cle is not really about same-​​​​sex mar­riage as such, but about an obscure lit­tle choice of law prob­lem in one of the very few areas where fed­eral courts have to look into the valid­ity of a mar­riage [ . . . ]

Read the Rest...

William Gluckin & Co. v. Int’l. Play­tex Corp., 407 F.2d 177 (2d Cir. 1969), is an opin­ion uphold­ing the issuance of a pre­lim­i­nary injunc­tion against Play­tex, man­u­fac­turer of, ahem, ladies’ sup­port gar­ments, pro­hibit­ing Play­tex from pros­e­cut­ing a law­suit it had filed against Wool­worth & Co. for sell­ing brassieres man­u­fac­tured by Gluckin at Woolworth’s stores in Geor­gia. See, what hap­pened was this: Play­tex had a patent, and Gluckin (allegedly) infringed the patent and sold the infring­ing unmen­tion­ables to Wool­worths, who sold lots of them in Geor­gia. Woolworth’s, Play­tex, and Gluckin were all New York cor­po­ra­tions amenable to suit in New York, but Gluckin was not [ . . . ]

Read the Rest...

I am happy to announce that the unplanned, unan­nounced hia­tus on which I have been for the past week or so is finally over! Excite­ment! Unfor­tu­nately, the planned, announced hia­tus on which I am now going has only just begun. Unfor­tu­nate! The last few weeks of the semes­ter are at hand, and will be fol­lowed inevitably and dia­bol­i­cally by the extremely unpleas­ant exam week. I’m sure there are fives, maybe even tens of you out there who have missed me this past week, and, alas, you shall all just have to go on miss­ing me for a while longer. Woe! I shall see [ . . . ]

Read the Rest...