Site Meter

Author: Vanderbilt Law Review

0

Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 65, Number 5 (October 2012)

Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 65, Number 5 (October 2012).

The Vanderbilt Law Review is proud to announce the publication of our October issue.

 

ARTICLES

Wayne A. Logan, Constitutional Cacophony: Federal Circuit Splits and the Fourth Amendment, 65 Vand. L. Rev. 1137 (2012).

Terry A. Maroney, Angry Judges, 65 Vand. L. Rev. 1207 (2012).

Morgan Ricks, A Regulatory Design for Monetary Stability, 65 Vand. L. Rev. 1289 (2012).

 

NOTES

Angela L. Bergman, For Their Own Good? Exploring Legislative Responses to the Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children and the Illinois Safe Children Act, 65 Vand. L. Rev. 1361 (2012).

Marcy Nicks Moody, WARNING: MAY CAUSE WARMING Potential Trade Challenges to Private Environmental Labels, 65 Vand. L. Rev. 1401 (2012).

Are you interested in writing a response to one of these pieces? Visit Vanderbilt Law Review En Banc for more details.

0

Vanderbilt Law Review En Banc – New Publications

Vanderbilt Law Review En Banc is pleased to announce several new publications.

Three response essays in our Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin Roundtable are now available, including:

Revisiting Grutter and Its Diversity Rationale: A Few Reactions to Professor Blumstein’s Critique
Vikram David Amar · 65 Vand. L. Rev. En Banc 195 (2012)

Whatever
Girardeau A. Spann · 65 Vand. L. Rev. En Banc 203 (2012)

The Education of an Admissions Office
Gerald Torres · 65 Vand. L. Rev. En Banc 211 (2012)

We have also published two new book reviews:

American Legal History Revisited
James W. Ely, Jr. · 65 Vand. L. Rev. En Banc 185 (2012), Reviewing: G. Edward White, Law in American History, Volume 1: From the Colonial Years Through the Civil War (Oxford University Press, 2012).

Justice for All?
Rebecca K. Lee · 65 Vand. L. Rev. En Banc 217 (2012), Reviewing: Judith Resnik & Dennis Curtis, Representing Justice: Invention, Controversy, and Rights in City-States and Democratic Courtrooms (Yale University Press, 2011).

0

Vanderbilt Law Review En Banc Fisher v. University of Texas Roundtable

Vanderbilt Law Review En Banc is pleased to present the first round of our current Roundtable, which looks at Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin. Fisher will be argued in the October 2012 Supreme Court Term and the Court will consider whether the University of Texas’s use of race in its undergraduate admissions process is lawful under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Professors Vikram Amar, James Blumstein, Tomiko Brown-Nagin, Girardeau Spann, and Gerald Torres consider the issues and offer their views on how the Court might—or should—approach this case in their “First Take” articles. In approximately eight weeks, these same scholars will offer responses to each other’s essays. We look forward to a spirited debate on these interesting and often contentious issues.

Roundtable: First Takes

Is Honesty the Best (Judicial) Policy in Affirmative Action Cases? Fisher v. University of Texas Gives the Court (Yet) Another Chance to Say Yes
Vikram David Amar · 65 Vand. L. Rev. En Banc 77 (2012)

Grutter and Fisher: A Reassessment and a Preview
James F. Blumstein · 65 Vand. L. Rev. En Banc 57 (2012)

The Diversity Paradox: Judicial Review in an Age of Demographic and Educational Change
Tomiko Brown-Nagin · 65 Vand. L. Rev. En Banc 113 (2012)

Fisher v. Grutter
Girardeau A. Spann · 65 Vand. L. Rev. En Banc 45 (2012)

Fisher v. University of Texas: Living in the Dwindling Shadow of LBJ’s America
Gerald Torres · 65 Vand. L. Rev. En Banc 97 (2012)

0

Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 65, Number 4 (May 2012)

Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 65, Number 4 (May 2012).

The Vanderbilt Law Review is proud to announce the publication of our May issue. Congratulations to the Class of 2012 and a special thank you to the outgoing editorial board!

 

ARTICLES

Sergio J. Campos, Mass Torts and Due Process, 65 Vand. L. Rev. 1059 (2012).

David S. Rubenstein, Delegating Supremacy?, 65 Vand. L. Rev. 1125 (2012).

Franita Tolson, Reinventing Sovereignty?: Federalism as a Constraint on the Voting Rights Act, 65 Vand. L. Rev. 1195 (2012).

 

NOTES

Evie Whiting, Square Dance: Fitting the Square Peg of Fixation into the Round Hole of Choreographic Works, 65 Vand. L. Rev. 1261 (2012).

John C. Williams, Qualifying Qualified Immunity, 65 Vand. L. Rev. 1295 (2012).

Are you interested in writing a response to one of these pieces? Visit Vanderbilt Law Review En Banc for more details.

0

Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 65, Number 3 (April 2012)

Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 65, Number 3 (April 2012).

The Vanderbilt Law Review is proud to announce the publication of our April issue.

 

ARTICLES

David Fagundes & Jonathan S. Masur, Costly Intellectual Property, 65 Vand. L. Rev. 677 (2012).

Paul H. Robinson, Sean E. Jackowitz, Daniel M. Bartels, Extralegal Punishment Factors: A Study of Forgiveness, Hardship, Good Deeds, Apology, Remorse, and Other Such Discretionary Factors in Assessing Criminal Punishment, 65 Vand. L. Rev. 737 (2012).

Eyal Zamir, Loss Aversion and the Law, 65 Vand. L. Rev. 829 (2012).

 

ESSAY

Jill Elaine Hasday, Siblings in Law, 65 Vand. L. Rev. 897 (2012).

 

NOTES

Stephanie A. Kostiuk, After GINA, NINA? Neuroscience-Based Discrimination in the Workplace, 65 Vand. L. Rev. 933 (2012).

Mary Alexander Myers, Standing on the Edge: Standing Doctrine and the Injury Requirement at the Borders of Establishment Clause Jurisprudence, 65 Vand. L. Rev. 979 (2012).

Rachel A. Weisshaar, Hazy Shades of Winter: Resolving the Circuit Split over Preliminary Injunctions, 65 Vand. L. Rev. 1011 (2012).

Are you interested in writing a response to one of these pieces? Visit Vanderbilt Law Review En Banc for more details.

0

Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 65, Number 2 (March 2012)

Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 65, Number 2 (March 2012).

The Vanderbilt Law Review is proud to announce the publication of our March issue.

 

ARTICLES

Robert P. Bartlett, III, Making Banks Transparent, 65 Vand. L. Rev. 293 (2012).

Christine N. Cimini, Undocumented Workers and Concepts of Fault: Are Courts Engaged in Legitimate Decisionmaking?, 65 Vand. L. Rev. 389 (2012).

Brandon L. Garrett, Eyewitnesses and Exclusion, 65 Vand. L. Rev. 451 (2012).

Jonathan Remy Nash, On the Efficient Deployment of Rules and Standards to Define Federal Jurisdiction, 65 Vand. L. Rev. 509 (2012).

 

NOTES

Adam Pié, The Monster Under the Bed: The Imaginary Circuit Split and the Nightmares Created in the Special Needs Doctrine’s Application to Child Abuse, 65 Vand. L. Rev. 563 (2012).

Geraldine W. Young, A More Intelligent and Just Atkins: Adjusting for the Flynn Effect in Capital Determinations of Mental Retardation or Intellectual Disability, 65 Vand. L. Rev. 615 (2012).

Are you interested in writing a response to one of these pieces? Visit Vanderbilt Law Review En Banc for more details.

0

Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 65, Number 1 (January 2012)

Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 65, Number 1 (January 2012).

The Vanderbilt Law Review is proud to announce the publication of our January issue.

 

ARTICLES

Darian M. Ibrahim, The New Exit in Venture Capital, 65 Vand. L. Rev. 1 (2012).

Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer, The “Independent” Sector: Fee-for-Service Charity and the Limits of Autonomy, 65 Vand. L. Rev. 51 (2012).

Timothy Zick, Falsely Shouting Fire in a Global Theater: Emerging Complexities of Transborder Expression, 65 Vand. L. Rev. 125 (2012).

 

NOTES

Caroline Cecot, Blowing Hot Air: An Analysis of State Involvement in Greenhouse Gas Litigation, 65 Vand. L. Rev. 189 (2012).

Mike Dreyfuss, My Fellow Americans, We Are Going to Kill You: The Legality of Targeting and Killing U.S. Citizens Abroad, 65 Vand. L. Rev. 249 (2012).

Are you interested in writing a response to one of these pieces? Visit Vanderbilt Law Review En Banc for more details.

0

Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 64, Number 6 (November 2011)

Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 64, Number 6 (November 2011)

The Vanderbilt Law Review is proud to announce the publication of our November issue. This issue follows a conference hosted on April 1, 2011 titled Rigs, Risk, and Responsibility: Conference on the BP Oil Spill.

CONFERENCE

W. Kip Viscusi & Richard J. Zeckhauser, Deterring and Compensating Oil-Spill Catastrophes: The Need for Strict and Two-Tier Liability, 64 Vand. L. Rev. 1717 (2011).

Kenneth S. Abraham, Catastrophic Oil Spills and the Problem of Insurance, 64 Vand. L. Rev. 1769 (2011).

Joseph E. Aldy, Real-Time Economic Analysis and Policy Development During the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, 64 Vand. L. Rev. 1795 (2011).

Edward B. Barbier, Coastal Wetland Restoration and the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, 64 Vand. L. Rev. 1821 (2011).

Mark A. Cohen, Madeline Gottlieb, Joshua Linn & Nathan Richardson, Deepwater Drilling: Law, Policy, and Economics of Firm Organization and Safety, 64 Vand. L. Rev. 1853 (2011).

Bruce L. Hay, Christopher Rendall-Jackson & David Rosenberg, Litigating BP’s Contribution Claims in Publicly Subsidized Courts: Should Contracting Parties Pay Their Own Way?, 64 Vand. L. Rev. 1919 (2011).

Erin O’Hara O’Connor, Organizational Apologies: BP as a Case Study, 64 Vand. L. Rev. 1959 (2011).

Steven Shavell, Should BP Be Liable for Economic Losses Due to the Moratorium on Oil Drilling Imposed After the Deepwater Horizon Accident?, 64 Vand. L. Rev. 1995 (2011).

Are you interested in writing a response to one of these pieces? Visit our website for more details.

0

Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 64, Number 5 (October 2011)

Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 64, Number 5 (October 2011)

The Vanderbilt Law Review is proud to announce the publication of our October issue. This issue includes tributes to Professor Richard A. Nagareda.

 

RICHARD A. NAGAREDA, IN MEMORIAM

Andrew R. Gould, Foreword, 64 Vand. L. Rev. 1397 (2011).

J. Maria Glover, Tribute Essay, 64 Vand. L. Rev. 1401 (2011).

John C.P. Goldberg, Tribute Essay, 64 Vand. L. Rev. 1409 (2011).

Chris Guthrie, Tribute Essay, 64 Vand. L. Rev. 1415 (2011).

Samuel Issacharoff, Tribute Essay, 64 Vand. L. Rev. 1419 (2011).

Suzanna Sherry, Tribute Essay, 64 Vand. L. Rev. 1423 (2011).

 

ARTICLES

R. Michael Cassidy, Plea Bargaining, Discovery, and the Intractable Problem of Impeachment Disclosures, 64 Vand. L. Rev. 1429 (2011).

Sean B. Seymore, Patently Impossible, 64 Vand. L. Rev. 1491 (2011).

Tess Wilkinson-Ryan, Breaching the Mortgage Contract: The Behavioral Economics of Strategic Default, 64 Vand. L. Rev. 1547 (2011).

 

NOTES

Jenna G. Farleigh, Splitting the Baby: Standardizing Issue Class Certification, 64 Vand. L. Rev. 1585 (2011).

Nathan Pysno, Should Twombly and Iqbal Apply to Affirmative Defenses?, 64 Vand. L. Rev. 1633 (2011).

Gavin Reinke, When a Promise Isn’t a Promise: Public Employers’ Ability to Alter Pension Plans of Retired Employees, 64 Vand. L. Rev. 1673 (2011).

Are you interested in writing a response to one of these pieces? Visit our website for more details.

0

Vanderbilt Law Review En Banc Golan Roundtable

Vanderbilt Law Review En Banc is pleased to present our current Roundtable on Golan v. Holder, which is to be argued at the Supreme Court on October 5, 2011. In Golan, the Court will consider whether Congress may constitutionally confer copyright on works that have fallen into the public domain. Congress created a new class of “restored” works in 1996 in order to fulfill its obligations under the Berne Convention, an international copyright treaty. Professor Tyler T. Ochoa introduces the case, discusses the history of the Berne Convention, and analyzes how the Court’s decision will affect the idea of the public domain. Professor Daniel Gervais takes a closer look at the Berne Convention. He argues that Berne is a flexible document and that Congress provided greater protection to restored works than is actually required by the treaty. Dale Nelson, Senior Intellectual Property Counsel at Warner Bros., questions whether restoration has had as significant an effect on the public domain as its detractors believe. She argues that the benefits of restoring foreign works to copyright greatly outweigh the burdens to users. Professor David Olson looks at Golan’s constitutional questions from a perspective not emphasized in the parties’ briefs. He argues that, because restoration is in violation of the Progress Clause, the Government can assert no legitimate interest to support its claim that restoration does not unconstitutionally restrict the Petitioners’ First Amendment speech rights. Finally, Professor Elizabeth Townsend Gard takes a detailed look at the mechanics of the statute enacting copyright restoration. In her view, the statute does not achieve the Government’s stated interests and transgresses the traditional contours of copyright. She provides several recommendations for statutory amendments that would make determination of public domain status a more manageable exercise.


Tyler T. Ochoa, Is the Copyright Public Domain Irrevocable? An Introduction to Golan v. Holder, 64 Vand. L. Rev. En Banc 123 (2011).

Daniel Gervais, Golan v. Holder: A Look at the Constraints Imposed by the Berne Convention, 64 Vand. L. Rev. En Banc 147 (2011).

Dale Nelson, Golan Restoration: Small Burden, Big Gains, 64 Vand. L. Rev. En Banc 165 (2011).

David S. Olson, A Legitimate Interest in Promoting the Progress of Science: Constitutional Constraints on Copyright Laws, 64 Vand. L. Rev. En Banc 185 (2011).

Elizabeth Townsend Gard, In the Trenches with § 104A: An Evaluation of the Parties’ Arguments in Golan v. Holder as It Heads to the Supreme Court, 64 Vand. L. Rev. En Banc 199 (2011).