Latest news with #AmericanLawInstitute
Yahoo
27-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The University of Iowa's College of Law has promoted its interim dean. What to know
The University of Iowa has named a new College of Law dean nearly a year after initiating a nationwide search. Longtime faculty member and current interim dean of the College of Law, Todd Pettys, will continue to lead the school for the next two years. The university plans to launch a national search for his successor before Pettys' term expires in 2027. Pettys has worked for the University of Iowa since 1999 and holds the H. Blair and Joan V. White Chair in Civil Litigation. He has been the interim dean of the school since Jan. 1. He was the college's associate dean for faculty from 2011 to 2015. Pettys has earned numerous honors for his expertise in constitutional law, federal courts, and the U.S. Supreme Court and is also an elected member of the American Law Institute. More: Group protests ICE in Cedar Rapids in show of solidarity with Los Angeles demonstrations 'While serving as interim dean of the College of Law, Todd has demonstrated strong, collaborative leadership that has guided the college through a seamless transition,' said Kevin Kregel, executive vice president and provost, in a news release. 'After conversations with many in the college, it became clear that Todd's deep institutional knowledge, national reputation, and commitment to the Iowa Law community make him the right person to lead at this time.' In December, the University of Iowa announced that it had "temporarily suspended" its nationwide search for a new dean. Former dean Kevin Washburn announced his resignation in May 2024. Washburn is still a part of the UI faculty and has led the college since 2018. More: University of Iowa eyes big upgrades like $28M tech lab renovation, medical campus water tower The university identified three finalists: Rebecca Ernst Zietlow, interim dean of the University of Toledo in Ohio; Melissa Mortazavi, the presidential professor of law at the University of Oklahoma in Norman, Oklahoma; and Lumen (Lou) N. Mulligan, dean and professor of law at the University of Missouri at Kansas City. 'I am humbled by the opportunity to continue leading Iowa Law during this important time,' said Pettys in a news release. 'I look forward to working with our extraordinary community of faculty, staff, students, and alumni to build on our strengths and continue moving the college forward.' The university said it needs more time to decide on a full-time dean. (This article has been updated because an earlier version included an inaccuracy.) Jessica Rish is an entertainment, dining and education reporter for the Iowa City Press-Citizen. She can be reached at JRish@ or on X, formerly known as Twitter, @rishjessica_ This article originally appeared on Iowa City Press-Citizen: UI College of Law promotes Todd Pettys to dean through 2027
The Age
09-06-2025
- Entertainment
- The Age
A new kind of drama is set to unfold with changed privacy laws
An Australian scandal is a like a sudden southerly on a clear summer's day – unexpected, jarring and liable to leave everyone shivering in its wake. From political pitfalls to celebrity slip-ups and the ever-rumbling corridors of Parliament House, we are a nation that guards privacy with one hand and refreshes newsfeeds with the other. Little wonder, then, that a show like Bridgerton – with its heaving corsets, whispered secrets and illicit entanglements – has a devoted fan base here. It's not just the drama that captivates us, but the tension between the private and the public, discretion and spectacle. While fans must wait until 2026 for the next episode, take heart 'dearest gentle reader': whispers among case-starved defamation lawyers suggest a new kind of drama is set to unfold. From Tuesday, a new statutory tort of privacy makes its debut on the Australian legal stage – and it's expected to dance to a familiar tune. Australians who suffer a serious invasion of privacy may claim up to $478,000 in damages and seek remedies including injunctions. As the age of unchecked intrusion draws to a genteel close, Lady Whistledown herself might remark that society's most prominent figures will breathe easier behind their velvet curtains. Or so they may think. As far back as 1960, US professor William Prosser identified four privacy torts: intrusion upon seclusion; public disclosure of private facts; false light portrayal; and appropriation of likeness. By 1977, all four were recorded in the US Restatement of Torts, a treatise issued by the American Law Institute. While not uniformly adopted there, intrusion and disclosure are well established – especially in celebrity-laden California. Britain took longer to get there. In 1991, two Sunday Sport photographers posed as doctors to snap a British actor in his hospital bed. The Court of Appeal famously declared: 'In English law, there is no right to privacy'. By 2000, however, the House of Lords changed course in Naomi Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers. The action for 'misuse of private information' was born. By 2014, it was recognised as a tort, and today, privacy suits in London have become de rigueur. New Zealand recognised a general tort of privacy in 2004. By 2012 it recognised intrusion into seclusion as a standalone tort when a young woman was secretly filmed in the shower and awarded damages. That same year, Canada did likewise when a bank employee whose financial data had been improperly accessed received damages. Australia, by contrast, wasn't even at the races. It relied on defamation and breach of confidence – a patchy and much-criticised regime. This nearly changed a quarter-century ago in the Lenah Game Meats case. The chief justice urged better protection for privacy; the Australian Law Reform Commission echoed this in 2014. Lawyers even tried to open cracks left by the Lenah case, but these mostly faltered. In 2016, former High Court judge Michael Kirby said the inertia made Australia a ' laughing stock '.
Sydney Morning Herald
09-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Sydney Morning Herald
A new kind of drama is set to unfold with changed privacy laws
An Australian scandal is a like a sudden southerly on a clear summer's day – unexpected, jarring and liable to leave everyone shivering in its wake. From political pitfalls to celebrity slip-ups and the ever-rumbling corridors of Parliament House, we are a nation that guards privacy with one hand and refreshes newsfeeds with the other. Little wonder, then, that a show like Bridgerton – with its heaving corsets, whispered secrets and illicit entanglements – has a devoted fan base here. It's not just the drama that captivates us, but the tension between the private and the public, discretion and spectacle. While fans must wait until 2026 for the next episode, take heart 'dearest gentle reader': whispers among case-starved defamation lawyers suggest a new kind of drama is set to unfold. From Tuesday, a new statutory tort of privacy makes its debut on the Australian legal stage – and it's expected to dance to a familiar tune. Australians who suffer a serious invasion of privacy may claim up to $478,000 in damages and seek remedies including injunctions. As the age of unchecked intrusion draws to a genteel close, Lady Whistledown herself might remark that society's most prominent figures will breathe easier behind their velvet curtains. Or so they may think. As far back as 1960, US professor William Prosser identified four privacy torts: intrusion upon seclusion; public disclosure of private facts; false light portrayal; and appropriation of likeness. By 1977, all four were recorded in the US Restatement of Torts, a treatise issued by the American Law Institute. While not uniformly adopted there, intrusion and disclosure are well established – especially in celebrity-laden California. Britain took longer to get there. In 1991, two Sunday Sport photographers posed as doctors to snap a British actor in his hospital bed. The Court of Appeal famously declared: 'In English law, there is no right to privacy'. By 2000, however, the House of Lords changed course in Naomi Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers. The action for 'misuse of private information' was born. By 2014, it was recognised as a tort, and today, privacy suits in London have become de rigueur. New Zealand recognised a general tort of privacy in 2004. By 2012 it recognised intrusion into seclusion as a standalone tort when a young woman was secretly filmed in the shower and awarded damages. That same year, Canada did likewise when a bank employee whose financial data had been improperly accessed received damages. Australia, by contrast, wasn't even at the races. It relied on defamation and breach of confidence – a patchy and much-criticised regime. This nearly changed a quarter-century ago in the Lenah Game Meats case. The chief justice urged better protection for privacy; the Australian Law Reform Commission echoed this in 2014. Lawyers even tried to open cracks left by the Lenah case, but these mostly faltered. In 2016, former High Court judge Michael Kirby said the inertia made Australia a ' laughing stock '.
