J.C. Oleson *
Happy Birthday, Sara!
Yes, I know that your full name is the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98-473, 98 Stat. 1987, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3551 et seq. and 28 U.S.C. §§ 991 to 998, but that’s an awful mouthful. And really, you’ll always be just “SRA”—Sara—to me. Sara, 2009 was your twenty-fifth birthday and in your honor, throughout 2009 and early 2010, the United States Sentencing Commission (“Commission”) held parties across the country. Yes, I know, officially they called them regional hearings, convened pursuant to the Commission’s authority under 28 U.S.C. § 994(o), but we know that they were really birthday parties for you.
* Senior Lecturer, Department of Sociology, University of Auckland. J.D., 2001, School of Law, University of California, Berkeley (Boalt Hall); Ph.D., 1998, University of Cambridge; M. Phil., 1995, University of Cambridge; B.A., 1994, Saint Mary’s College of California.
Marguerite R. Ruby *
Sarah Warren S. Beverly **
As the 2010–11 Annual Survey Editor and the 1985–86 Editor-in-Chief, we are proud to commemorate the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Annual Survey of Virginia Law with a look back at its history. The Annual Survey continues to be the most widely read of the four issues published by the University of Richmond Law Review each year. We attribute the Annual Survey’s success to the combination of relevant and timely subject matter and adept and renowned authors. This foreword and the entire anniversary issue celebrate the subjects and authors that have made the last twenty-five years of the Annual Survey so enjoyable and successful. We hope the Law Review will continue this tradition of compiling and disseminating to the legal community a comprehensive critical analysis of recent developments in Virginia law for years to come.
*University of Richmond Law Review Editor-in-Chief 1985–86
**University of Richmond Law Review Annual Survey Editor 2010–11
John P. Rowley III *
Richard G. Moore **
Despite its widespread and long-standing recognition as a valuable docket-control device, the bifurcation of issues in civil trials has generated considerable debate among legal scholars and judges. The state and federal courts both utilize bifurcation, and the Supreme Court of Appeals in Virginia recognized the advantages of the procedural device as early as 1915. Nonetheless, authority for the bifurcation of issues in civil trials in Virginia has remained clouded. The Supreme Court of Virginia lifted at least some of the clouds when it decided Allstate Insurance Co. v. Wade, thereby rejecting the position taken in an amicus curiae brief filed by the Virginia Trial Lawyers Association that bifurcation is not authorized under Virginia law.
*John P. Rowley, III is a litigation partner at Baker & Mckenzie L.L.P., Washington, D.C.
**Richard G. Moore is a contract attorney at Holland & Knight L.L.P., McLean, Virginia, where he practices complex civil litigation. Mr. Moore is also a former Assistant Judge Advocate General of the Navy (Military Law) and a retired United States Marine Corps Brigadier General.
Matthew R. Farley *
Health care reform has been a primary goal of presidential candidates for the past half-century. At least since the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 and the inception of the Medicare system in 1965, the primacy of achieving extensive and efficient health care in American policymaking cannot be seriously disputed. Currently, health care costs seem uncontrollable, and nearly fifty million Americans remain uninsured. Continuing into modern times, a cornerstone of President Bill Clinton‘s first term in office was to provide health care for all Americans. And although Democrats held a majority of seats in both chambers of Congress at the time, Clinton‘s attempt to revamp the health care system failed remarkably.
*Law Clerk to the Hon. Thomas E. Johnston, United States District Judge for the Southern District of West Virginia. J.D., 2010, University of Richmond School of Law; B.A., 2007, University of Mary Washington.
Andrew A. Painter *
Governed under current Virginia Code section 15.2-5152 et seq. (jointly, “CDA Statutes”), Community Development Authorities (“CDAs”) were first authorized by the General Assembly in 1993 under the provisions of the Virginia Water and Waste Authorities Act (“WWAA”) to provide an additional method for localities to finance infrastructure associated with development and redevelopment in an authority district. Given that Virginia‘s localities have increasingly considered CDAs as a way to cope with revenue shortfalls and growing infrastructure demands, and considering that many jurisdictions have yet to enact policies concerning their use, this article endeavors to provide an overview of the current status of CDA law in Virginia, including attendant considerations as to CDA legislative development, establishment, governance, and powers.
* Associate, Walsh Colucci Lubeley Emrich & Walsh P.C., Northern Virginia. J.D., 2007, University of Richmond Law School; M.U.E.P., 2004, University of Virginia; B.A., 2002, Mary Washington College. Mr. Painter‘s practice focuses on land use and zoning entitlements as well as variances and zoning appeals, tax assessment challenges, local government law, and community development authorities. The author expresses sincere thanks to Bonnie M. France of McGuireWoods L.L.P. and John H. Foote of Walsh Colucci Lubeley Emrich & Walsh P.C.
Brent M. Timberlake *
Monica A. Stahly **
“Fool me once, shame on you; fool me . . . and you can‘t get fooled again.”*** —George W. Bush (2006)
July 30, 1965—that was the date on which two decades of debate over the national health insurance system that would come to be known as Medicare was signed into law as part of President Johnson‘s “Great Society” legislation. Since that time Medicare eligibility has expanded and the prospect of its insolvency continues to become more likely. In order to minimize unnecessary expenditures of Medicare funds, Medicare was statutorily deemed to have secondary liability in areas where primary insurers— including self-insurers, liability insurers, group health plans, and workers‘ compensation insurers—have an obligation to pay for Medicare recipients‘ medical care.
*Associate, Troutman Sanders L.L.P., Richmond, Virginia. J.D., 2004, University of Richmond School of Law; B.A., 2001, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
**J.D. Candidate, 2012, University of Richmond School of Law.
***godsroundtable, Bush “Fool Me Once . . .”, YOUTUBE (June 24, 2006), http:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKgPY1adc0A.