Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 61, Number 6 (November 2008)
posted by Vanderbilt Law Review
Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 61, Number 6 (November 2008)
ARTICLES
Nestor M. Davidson, Standardization and Pluralism in Property Law, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 1597 (2008).
Lumen N. Mulligan, A Unified Theory of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Jurisdiction, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 1667 (2008).
Jonathan Remy Nash & Rafael I. Pardo, An Empirical Investigation into Appellate Structure and the Perceived Quality of Appellate Review, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 1745 (2008).
ESSAY
Tracy E. George & Chris Guthrie, “The Threes”: Re-Imagining Supreme Court Decisionmaking, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 1825 (2008).
NOTES
John A. Greer, If the Shoe Fits: Reconciling the International Shoe Minimum Contacts Test with the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 1861 (2008).
Christopher Brett Jaeger, “Does that Sound Familiar?”: Creators’ Liability for Unconscious Copyright Infringement, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 1903 (2008).
Andrew Smith, Brady Obligations, Criminal Sanctions, and Solutions in a New Era of Scrutiny, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 1935 (2008).
Interested in writing a response to one of these articles? Check out our website to find out how.
November 21, 2008 at 6:21 am
Posted in: Law Rev (Vanderbilt)
Print This Post
Responses (3)
Anonymous Law Prof - November 21, 2008 at 9:09 am
On page 1843 of their fascinating essay, George and Guthrie refer to Roe v. Wade as a 6-3 decision. But at page 1828 n. 13, they describe Roe v. Wade as a 7-2 decision. Normally, I would argue that such a minor error is not even worth mentioning, but it takes on more importance given their particular proposal and analysis.
Scott Goldman, Editor in Chief, Vanderbilt Law Review - November 21, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Roe v. Wade was indeed a 7-2 decision. The Vanderbilt Law Review thanks this reader for his or her careful attention. We have corrected this error for the print edition and in our online PDFs. This error is entirely our own, and we apologize to Professors George and Guthrie for displaying the Justice count incorrectly as 6-3 on page 1843.
Another Law Prof - November 22, 2008 at 5:38 pm
This error was no Tulane-level error!
Leave a Reply