A lecturer from Durham University has been awarded a grant for his part in a project that seeks to further our understanding of how the sun works.
African vultures face an increasing risk of fatal poisoning, according to Durham University research.
Birds in Asia may need a helping hand to adapt to climate change, according to scientists.
Two Durham University students who led a mass peace campaign in Northern Ireland are helping to launch a new network for peace across the UK.
This commentary previews an upcoming Supreme Court case, US Airways v. McCutchen, in which the Court will decide whether courts are permitted to use equitable principles to rewrite contractual language for benefit plans under ERISA.
This commentary previews an upcoming Supreme Court case, Amgen v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds, in which the Court will decide whether plaintiffs in securities fraud class actions must prove materiality at the class certification stage, or if that inquiry is more appropriately left to later stages of litigation.
Not enough kidneys are donated each year to satisfy the demand from patients who need them. Strong moral and legal norms interfere with market-based solutions. To improve the supply of kidneys without violating these norms, we propose legal reforms that would strengthen the incentive to donate based on altruistic motives.
How can conflict of laws respond to the challenges from globalization? Some argue that state-based approaches like governmental interest analysis are inadequate, and advocate a return to the approach taken by the German scholar Savigny in the 19th century. The article shows that the assumption is correct: state-based approaches have indeed become problematic.
Although section 701(j) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires that employers reasonably accommodate their employees' religious practices and beliefs, many commentators acknowledge that the spirit of reasonable accommodation has not been realized because courts have drastically limited the scope of employers' duty.
A great deal of everyday expression is, strictly speaking, nonsense. But courts and scholars have done little to consider whether or why such meaningless speech, like nonrepresentational art, falls within “the freedom of speech.” If, as many suggest, meaning is what separates speech from sound and expression from conduct, then the constitutional case for nonsense is complicated.