<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Concurring Opinions &#187; Law Rev Contents</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/category/law-rev-contents/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com</link>
	<description>The Law, the Universe, and Everything</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 00:27:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Stanford Law Review Online: The Privacy Paradox 2012 Symposium Issue</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2012/02/stanford-law-review-online-the-privacy-paradox-2012-symposium-issue.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2012/02/stanford-law-review-online-the-privacy-paradox-2012-symposium-issue.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 18:04:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Stanford Law Review</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Stanford)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev Contents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law School]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law School (Scholarship)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Military Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy (Consumer Privacy)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy (Electronic Surveillance)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy (Law Enforcement)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy (Medical)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy (National Security)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social Network Websites]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tort Law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.concurringopinions.com/?p=57465</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p></p>
<p>Our 2012 Symposium Issue, The Privacy Paradox: Privacy and Its Conflicting Values, is now available online:</p>
<p>Essays</p>

A Reasonableness Approach to Searches After the Jones GPS Tracking Case by Peter Swire (64 Stan. L. Rev. Online 57);
Privacy in the Age of Big Data by Omer Tene &#38; Jules Polonetsky (64 Stan. L. Rev. Online 63);
Yes We Can (Profile You): A Brief Primer on Campaigns and Political Data by Daniel Kreiss (64 Stan. L. Rev. Online 70);
Paving the Regulatory Road to the &#8220;Learning Health Care System&#8221; by Deven McGraw (64 Stan. L. Rev. Online 75);
Famous for Fifteen People: Celebrity, Newsworthiness, and Fraley v. Facebook by Simon J. Frankel, Laura Brookover &#38; Stephen Satterfield (64 Stan. L. Rev. Online 82); and
The Right to Be Forgotten by Jeffrey Rosen (64 [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://www.concurringopinions.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Stanford-Law-Review-Logo1.jpg" alt="Stanford Law Review" width="400" height="77" class="alignnone size-full wp-image-54510" /></p>
<p>Our 2012 Symposium Issue, <a href="http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/privacy-paradox" title="The Privacy Paradox - Stanford Law Review"><em>The Privacy Paradox: Privacy and Its Conflicting Values</em></a>, is now available online:</p>
<p><strong>Essays</strong></p>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/privacy-paradox/searches-after-jones" title="A Reasonableness Approach to Searches After the Jones GPS Tracking Case - Stanford Law Review"><em>A Reasonableness Approach to Searches After the</em> Jones <em>GPS Tracking Case</em></a> by Peter Swire (64 <span style="font-variant: small-caps">Stan. L. Rev. Online</span> 57);</li>
<li><a href="http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/privacy-paradox/big-data" title="Privacy in the Age of Big Data - Stanford Law Review"><em>Privacy in the Age of Big Data</em></a> by Omer Tene &amp; Jules Polonetsky (64 <span style="font-variant: small-caps">Stan. L. Rev. Online</span> 63);</li>
<li><a href="http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/privacy-paradox/political-data" title="Yes We Can (Profile You) - Stanford Law Review"><em>Yes We Can (Profile You): A Brief Primer on Campaigns and Political Data</em></a> by Daniel Kreiss (64 <span style="font-variant: small-caps">Stan. L. Rev. Online</span> 70);</li>
<li><a href="http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/privacy-paradox/learning-health-care-system" title="Paving the Regulatory Road to the 'Learning Health Care System' - Stanford Law Review"><em>Paving the Regulatory Road to the &#8220;Learning Health Care System&#8221;</em></a> by Deven McGraw (64 <span style="font-variant: small-caps">Stan. L. Rev. Online</span> 75);</li>
<li><a href="http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/privacy-paradox/famous-fifteen-people" title="Famous for Fifteen People - Stanford Law Review"><em>Famous for Fifteen People: Celebrity, Newsworthiness, and</em> Fraley v. Facebook</a> by Simon J. Frankel, Laura Brookover &amp; Stephen Satterfield (64 <span style="font-variant: small-caps">Stan. L. Rev. Online</span> 82); and</li>
<li><a href="http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/privacy-paradox/right-to-be-forgotten" title="The Right to Be Forgotten - Stanford Law Review"><em>The Right to Be Forgotten</em></a> by Jeffrey Rosen (64 <span style="font-variant: small-caps">Stan. L. Rev. Online</span> 88).</li>
</ul>
<p>The text of Chief Judge Alex Kozinski&#8217;s keynote is forthcoming.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2012/02/stanford-law-review-online-the-privacy-paradox-2012-symposium-issue.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Illinois Law Review, Issue 2012:1 (January 2012)</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2012/01/illinois-law-review-issue-20121-january-2012.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2012/01/illinois-law-review-issue-20121-january-2012.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Jan 2012 00:00:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>University of Illinois Law Review</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Illinois)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev Contents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.concurringopinions.com/?p=56725</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p></p>
<p style="text-align: center">University of Illinois Law Review, Issue 2012:1</p>
<p style="text-align: center">Please see our website for past issues</p>
Articles
<p>A Positive Political Theory of Rules and Standards &#8211; Frank Cross, Tonja Jacobi &#38; Emerson Tiller  (PDF)</p>
<p>The People Paradox &#8211; Nicole Stelle Garnett  (PDF)</p>
<p>Contract’s Constitutive Core: Solving Problems by Making Deals &#8211; James A. Henderson, Jr.  (PDF)</p>
<p>Fairness Versus Welfare in Health Insurance Content Regulation &#8211; Amy B. Monahan  (PDF)</p>
David C. Baum Memorial Lecture
<p>The Power of Persuasion Before and Within the Supreme Court: Reflections on NEPA’s Zero for Seventeen Record at the High Court &#8211; Richard J. Lazarus  (PDF)</p>
Notes
<p>Drawing a Line: The Need to Rethink Remedies Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act &#8211; Justin A. Walters  (PDF)</p>
<p>Abandoning Property Taxes Assessed on Fallow Nonprofit Property &#8211; Brittany L. Viola  (PDF)</p>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/"><img class="aligncenter size-large wp-image-45685" src="http://www.concurringopinions.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/illinois_logo-550x90.gif" alt="University of Illinois Law Review Logo" width="550" height="90" /></a></p>
<p style="text-align: center"><a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/volume/2012/#number1">University of Illinois Law Review, Issue 2012:1</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center"><em>Please see our website for <a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/archives/">past issues</a></em></p>
<h3>Articles</h3>
<p><a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/article/a-positive-political-theory-of-rules-and-standards">A Positive Political Theory of Rules and Standards</a><em> &#8211; Frank Cross, Tonja Jacobi &amp; Emerson Tiller</em>  (<a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/ilr-content/articles/2012/1/Jacobi.pdf">PDF</a>)</p>
<p><a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/article/the-people-paradox">The People Paradox</a><em> &#8211; Nicole Stelle Garnett</em>  (<a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/ilr-content/articles/2012/1/Garnett.pdf">PDF</a>)</p>
<p><a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/article/contracts-constitutive-core-solving-problems-by-making-deals">Contract’s Constitutive Core: Solving Problems by Making Deals</a><em> &#8211; James A. Henderson, Jr.</em>  (<a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/ilr-content/articles/2012/1/Henderson.pdf">PDF</a>)</p>
<p><a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/article/fairness-versus-welfare-in-health-insurance-content-regulation">Fairness Versus Welfare in Health Insurance Content Regulation</a><em> &#8211; Amy B. Monahan</em>  (<a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/ilr-content/articles/2012/1/Monahan.pdf">PDF</a>)</p>
<h3>David C. Baum Memorial Lecture</h3>
<p><a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/article/the-power-of-persuasion-before-and-within-the-supreme-court-reflections-on-nepas-zero-for-seventeen-record-at-the-high-court">The Power of Persuasion Before and Within the Supreme Court: Reflections on NEPA’s Zero for Seventeen Record at the High Court</a><em> &#8211; Richard J. Lazarus</em>  (<a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/ilr-content/articles/2012/1/Lazarus.pdf">PDF</a>)</p>
<h3>Notes</h3>
<p><a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/article/drawing-a-line-the-need-to-rethink-remedies-under-the-age-discrimination-in-employment-act">Drawing a Line: The Need to Rethink Remedies Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act</a><em> &#8211; Justin A. Walters</em>  (<a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/ilr-content/articles/2012/1/Walters.pdf">PDF</a>)</p>
<p><a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/article/abandoning-property-taxes-assessed-on-fallow-nonprofit-property">Abandoning Property Taxes Assessed on Fallow Nonprofit Property</a><em> &#8211; Brittany L. Viola</em>  (<a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/ilr-content/articles/2012/1/Viola.pdf">PDF</a>)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2012/01/illinois-law-review-issue-20121-january-2012.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Harvard Law Review, 125:3 (2012)</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2012/01/harvard-law-review-1253-2012.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2012/01/harvard-law-review-1253-2012.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Jan 2012 18:57:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Harvard Law Review</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Harvard)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev Contents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.concurringopinions.com/?p=56525</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p></p>
<p style="text-align: center"></p>
Volume 125 · January 2012 · Number 3
<p></p>
<p>ARTICLE
Worth a Thousand Words: The Images of Copyright
Rebecca Tushnet</p>
<p>BOOK REVIEW
Capital Punishment and Contingency
Carol S. Steiker</p>
<p>NOTE
Spare the Mod: In Support of Total-Conversion Modified Video Games</p>
<p>RECENT CASES
Second Circuit Holds that Qualified Immunity Shields School Officials Who Discipline Students for Their Online Speech. — Doninger v. Niehoff, 642 F.3d 334 (2d Cir. 2011), cert. denied, No. 11-113, 2011 WL 3204853 (U.S. Oct. 31, 2011).</p>
<p>District of Oregon Invalidates Biological Opinion for Federally Operated Dams on Columbia River. — National Wildlife Federation v. National Marine Fisheries Service, No. CV 01- 00640-RE, 2011 WL 3322793 (D. Or. Aug. 2, 2011).</p>
<p>Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Unanimously Voids Foreclosure Sales Because Securitization Trusts Could Not Demonstrate Clear Chains of Title to Mortgages. — U.S. Bank [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p></p>
<p style="text-align: center"><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/index.php"><img src="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/images/hlr_logo.gif" alt="Harvard Law Review" border="0" /></a></p>
<h2 style="text-align: center">Volume 125 · January 2012 · Number 3</h2>
<p></p>
<p><strong>ARTICLE</strong><br />
<a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/125/january12/Article_8738.php">Worth a Thousand Words: The Images of Copyright</a><br />
<em>Rebecca Tushnet</em></p>
<p><strong>BOOK REVIEW</strong><br />
<a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/125/january12/Book_Review_8748.php">Capital Punishment and Contingency</a><br />
<em>Carol S. Steiker</em></p>
<p><strong>NOTE</strong><br />
<a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/125/january12/Note_8758.php">Spare the Mod: In Support of Total-Conversion Modified Video Games</a></p>
<p><strong>RECENT CASES</strong><br />
<a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/125/january12/Recent_Case_8768.php">Second Circuit Holds that Qualified Immunity Shields School Officials Who Discipline Students for Their Online Speech. — <em>Doninger v. Niehoff</em>, 642 F.3d 334 (2d Cir. 2011), <em>cert. denied</em>, No. 11-113, 2011 WL 3204853 (U.S. Oct. 31, 2011).</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/125/january12/Recent_Case_8778.php">District of Oregon Invalidates Biological Opinion for Federally Operated Dams on Columbia River. — <em>National Wildlife Federation v. National Marine Fisheries Service</em>, No. CV 01- 00640-RE, 2011 WL 3322793 (D. Or. Aug. 2, 2011).</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/125/january12/Recent_Case_8788.php">Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Unanimously Voids Foreclosure Sales Because Securitization Trusts Could Not Demonstrate Clear Chains of Title to Mortgages. — <em>U.S. Bank National Ass’n v. Ibanez</em>, 941 N.E.2d 40 (Mass. 2011).</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/125/january12/Recent_Case_8798.php">Fifth Circuit Holds that Undocumented Immigrants Do Not Have Second Amendment Rights. — <em>United States v. Portillo- Munoz</em>, 643 F.3d 437 (5th Cir. 2011).</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/125/january12/Recent_Case_8808.php">Fourth Circuit Upholds Federal Firearms Regulation. — <em>United States v. Masciandaro</em>, 638 F.3d 458 (4th Cir. 2011), <em>cert. denied</em>, No. 10-11212, 2011 WL 2516854 (U.S. Nov. 28, 2011).</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/125/january12/Recent_Case_8818.php"> Federal Circuit Holds that Mental Processes that Do Not, as a Practical Matter, Require a Computer to Be Performed Are Unpatentable. — <em>CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.</em>, 654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011).</a></p>
<p><strong>RECENT LEGISLATION</strong><br />
<a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/125/january12/Recent_Legislation_8828.php">Food Safety Modernization Act Implements Private Regulatory Scheme. — FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, Pub. L. No. 111-353, 124 Stat. 3885 (2011) (codified in scattered sections of the U.S. Code).</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/125/january12/Recent_Legislation_8838.php">Congress Delegates Power to Raise the Debt Ceiling. — Budget Control Act of 2011, Pub. L. No. 112-25, 125 Stat. 240 (to be codified in scattered sections of the U.S. Code).</a></p>
<p><strong>RECENT PUBLICATIONS</strong><br />
<a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/125/january12/Recent_Publications_8848.php">Recent Publications</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2012/01/harvard-law-review-1253-2012.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Harvard Law Review Online Forum: Responding to Jamal Greene, The Anticanon, 125 Harv. L. Rev. 379 (2011)</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2012/01/the-harvard-law-review-online-forum-responding-to-jamal-greene-the-anticanon-125-harv-l-rev-379-2011.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2012/01/the-harvard-law-review-online-forum-responding-to-jamal-greene-the-anticanon-125-harv-l-rev-379-2011.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2012 16:03:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Harvard Law Review</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Harvard)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev Contents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev Forum]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.concurringopinions.com/?p=56019</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>&#160;
</p>
<p></p>
Hollow Hopes and Exaggerated Fears: The Canon/Anticanon in Context
<p>Mark A. Graber :: The conventional constitutional canon and constitutional anticanon promote courts as powerful institutions. But neither the canonical nor the anticanonical constitutional decisions by the Supreme Court have produced the wonderful results or horrible evils sometimes attributed to them. In many cases, elected officials made cotemporaneous constitutional decisions that had as much influence as the celebrated or condemned judicial rulings. More often than not, judicial rulings matter by changing the political dynamics than by directly changing public policy. READ MORE
&#160;&#160;</p>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&nbsp;<br />
<a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/index.php"><img src="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/images/hlr_logo.gif" alt="Harvard Law Review" border="0" /></a></p>
<p><img src="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/images/forumcenterheader.gif" alt="Online Forum" hspace="0" vspace="0" /></p>
<h3>Hollow Hopes and Exaggerated Fears: The Canon/Anticanon in Context</h3>
<p>Mark A. Graber :: The conventional constitutional canon and constitutional anticanon promote courts as powerful institutions. But neither the canonical nor the anticanonical constitutional decisions by the Supreme Court have produced the wonderful results or horrible evils sometimes attributed to them. In many cases, elected officials made cotemporaneous constitutional decisions that had as much influence as the celebrated or condemned judicial rulings. More often than not, judicial rulings matter by changing the political dynamics than by directly changing public policy. <a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/125/december11/forum_778.php">READ MORE</a><br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2012/01/the-harvard-law-review-online-forum-responding-to-jamal-greene-the-anticanon-125-harv-l-rev-379-2011.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>University of Toronto Law Journal &#8211; Volume 61, Number 4, 2011</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2012/01/university-of-toronto-law-journal-volume-61-number-4-2011.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2012/01/university-of-toronto-law-journal-volume-61-number-4-2011.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2012 00:21:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>University of Toronto Law Journal</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Toronto)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev Contents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.concurringopinions.com/?p=55936</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>University of Toronto Law Journal &#8211; Volume 61, Number 4, 2011</p>
<p></p>
<p>Special Issue: Constitutionalism and the Criminal Law </p>
<p>Editors&#8217; Note
Shai Lavi, Hamish Stewart</p>
<p>Mind The Gap: Canada&#8217;s Different Criminal And Constitutional Standards Of Fault
Kent Roach</p>
<p>The Abiding Presence Of Conscience: Criminal Justice Against The Law And The Modern Constitutional Imagination
Benjamin L Berger</p>
<p>The Habibi Libel Trial: Defamation And The Hidden-Community Basis Of Criminal Law
Leora Bilsky</p>
<p>Covenants For The Sword
Alice Ristroph</p>
<p>Constitutional Rights In The Balance: Modern Exclusionary Rules And The Toleration Of Police Lawlessness In The Search For Truth
Stephen C Thaman</p>
<p>Policing Morality: Constitutional Law And The Criminalization Of Incest
Markus D Dubber</p>
<p>Basic Rights And Substantive Criminal Law: The Incest Case
Otto Lagodny</p>
<p>Citizenship Revocation As Punishment: On The Modern Duties Of Citizens And Their Criminal Breach
Shai Lavi</p>
<p>Constitutionalism And The Criminal Law: Rethinking Criminal Trial [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>University of Toronto Law Journal &#8211; </strong><a href="http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=p7tpm5cab&amp;et=1109051808552&amp;s=1&amp;e=001ylK9OgekkS862YyAsLyiyE4gdVKIj31H5Nh6l2dT_jb7nqKLL05_oCDpGY_5YyhcKY6P9W3eVhd5gD8hLDB7lXd0DFxWIUooutWr_i09n1JZ7Q3ZndPUoRPB4C0y_KDC_zDjt98qx6ZiyUKs7KL9EWY-fhCd-NAD" target="_blank">Volume 61, Number 4, 2011</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2011/05/university-of-toronto-law-journal-volume-61-number-1-2011.html/utlj-logo-5" rel="attachment wp-att-44557"><img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-44557" src="http://www.concurringopinions.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/utlj-logo-300x156.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="156" /></a></p>
<p><strong>Special Issue: Constitutionalism and the Criminal Law </strong></p>
<p><strong><a href="http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=p7tpm5cab&amp;et=1109051808552&amp;s=1&amp;e=001ylK9OgekkS8dgoqeQDl-bsDg-2tmDH6W0pxFkCfulEnZNz1Y7SJfn0PdNMv9grBk87osr2alZukA_RvjqDTVvXAQLhDGSVNyW7HM6gPXsmh47LoWYCM0q3VyuBDHTz7CkNjzmVwaPi0QvRatCCcwC2oue0w3Ooq6VuPFzSeAI1e49w00v-pIq_nmUDTGDWeVA89EJErdfR6G_rSn_muKIIh8ImGuckJ2" target="_blank">Editors&#8217; Note</a></strong><br />
Shai Lavi, Hamish Stewart</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=p7tpm5cab&amp;et=1109051808552&amp;s=1&amp;e=001ylK9OgekkS9a_EwXFOF_dmcUmyMzqmiaS6sZe27MMCzQ-SDQ4jnUXNOqDpo_RPeS9YHhKeUVH34S0a-Ti6w5GF02Z1Qo8Ao4Ixsxe9kgZEJKvj0Wn4os0Tvl1NXSM7pjoZl2FMxEsBlTQCLg2C2zR2anPCNjU-IFNLZFE-ZmDEQEPrUCXVV81kD3kjep3IIVQ4UFGlLLDeAm17-G6jYm2iYUdMjzmy0U" target="_blank">Mind The Gap: Canada&#8217;s Different Criminal And Constitutional Standards Of Fault</a></strong><br />
Kent Roach</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=p7tpm5cab&amp;et=1109051808552&amp;s=1&amp;e=001ylK9OgekkS8OvXPco6b62VY2uAKbBqmoSybzfUVyK3zWHJ7QkD-OaoE_uo4DUQyS24OUMaK86YWbvpRKRyHU_Y6iER_loymldEcjXFxyXXuQCvrlIwDJUABiREZ6gD5r-yNW8sJ6oBMEiNdfqJ2X38Az2pyKV4Y-gNk83iYqfYDeddjalQ2NIuCApX2tP938_O84grXDq1eL2LOdjQnIbFfXHhL6jtEY" target="_blank">The Abiding Presence Of Conscience: Criminal Justice Against The Law And The Modern Constitutional Imagination</a></strong><br />
Benjamin L Berger</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=p7tpm5cab&amp;et=1109051808552&amp;s=1&amp;e=001ylK9OgekkS8OaDbtLNbhGj221q3UDpH86_CL6zdrAJA9-gSPRQo3UXZJkgagawD2p0vdQ3wHfkZxpihU3n-F1aee09wu57eV62aun22UDWcYa_IMLiW2W4WmLHZ1dk6GcNsu7B7XUlrgw8W6m-5MLSMxRa-SFLAW-z0785rKiibqK0AjmYuiutUsToROs_3a6-rIeyYMNQMDj7UZlJYQHRXIQ0aAsexQ" target="_blank">The Habibi Libel Trial: Defamation And The Hidden-Community Basis Of Criminal Law</a></strong><br />
Leora Bilsky</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=p7tpm5cab&amp;et=1109051808552&amp;s=1&amp;e=001ylK9OgekkS8gpqGAgDV9XzabtPz72hLdA4ayJCwVM9j5PcvhvhqrQ9PTBHHKvZDx7hQbYursz_6g6qbsds9nIH7KPnFVTDbVSkMwXncYNQOA6Pypd-Ed4TJq7DDB3MECZSiQeH47HE2sCLXFaoZk8itVIeplVbN_uDAJjT1UuswOgVzd6XMfTBYdNiodngSj9AzdyAmc-8QFBCKQSu-ssHvdZykimWA1" target="_blank">Covenants For The Sword</a></strong><br />
Alice Ristroph</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=p7tpm5cab&amp;et=1109051808552&amp;s=1&amp;e=001ylK9OgekkS8dHJ18zpEX9nVDT7qSzxeuyeNPFrx9gUT-uf2rrhbwEXy9GvtGYqvRvARbtOV5gjb5gLjpr8JR0HjRz-xocRKe47WmCK16O6Mda-p01sAKyqiagSc_pb8V80azb718EKjHsuHP06eVUVPFoaIPgBcBHsc5Tcy20I7v4Qbyi2JNQZjFp_NJfH1LA4_gIUiRMwF6vZmFRsi_SU7Up3W3SPrk" target="_blank">Constitutional Rights In The Balance: Modern Exclusionary Rules And The Toleration Of Police Lawlessness In The Search For Truth</a></strong><br />
Stephen C Thaman</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=p7tpm5cab&amp;et=1109051808552&amp;s=1&amp;e=001ylK9OgekkS_RJPDdwkIFCgzkNmEZDG9pCHKlCDqWAAHnPtVdGHGFs6ttW3ik1PGx5IAxuZS5NJ68BvjaqMD6hT2HnzHlUAerJG1SoG_OH9YqjJ4bVV1OavEz3xX2J4evKQ1ymnmGLt7FTECon_Xqh8coMu2z4aXWIJibRSccCncNzmugEZBXtJyHNJaxZGCaV2BRP421nrcTEvmICjLPK7-K7Z3AEbHL" target="_blank">Policing Morality: Constitutional Law And The Criminalization Of Incest</a></strong><br />
Markus D Dubber</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=p7tpm5cab&amp;et=1109051808552&amp;s=1&amp;e=001ylK9OgekkS9JLyFdRB_ubumDQG-wkYyuScu5GA5Ch7iBwpuYkILB699tG_n0eyxGYArFw9uywkdwuiij-axbxivVPrvQUrzdBkeg2xppdXeqg8quRBcwLJYqcGygJhaiXuHiwMcTtGD3Kd1mYvnvsYJ9_QkRovkfb2Q2ZRTiq3dQeDQRdQK1ArnegF3odL1l9ZIzv6CDmi380LAWWRPxp5LNt8yC28yB" target="_blank">Basic Rights And Substantive Criminal Law: The Incest Case</a></strong><br />
Otto Lagodny</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=p7tpm5cab&amp;et=1109051808552&amp;s=1&amp;e=001ylK9OgekkS8grmZWM7eGAE6OcwPY6oTvRdwOMfQyt72RNP750jZgIKruK7H4pC2ATthamsmusF2uPE1hhOKfGYQhkQnBgbzUI3UJSF5xz0L61mhToFj6QYleIv3c3mX0qPGVveH0iVg59aP17kS_r5ShIVlwive2o2x59QacIlXo_MUhSbcyvxhZ_ifyHpRf-jrxUX3fJrBnxJTZz1TsPCeZ8puPqG_O" target="_blank">Citizenship Revocation As Punishment: On The Modern Duties Of Citizens And Their Criminal Breach</a></strong><br />
Shai Lavi</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=p7tpm5cab&amp;et=1109051808552&amp;s=1&amp;e=001ylK9OgekkS92cSiONOhktlqhXB4TN8zVoATQ8FxoqHCOpamNovJaBSFfiFwFAv7_0YAkPnANHQpkmmYX4SjwnK-kxDVqIgsFFLirw1jdGp3sMdcHfP49WzxTrCLJtJGkyt3OI_LysWIAm42iZhYCprw5ef3QGKUZgTk-QrTtlL0_akGlzs5KEozyYvLYfeRl587rDDlLOlKUG-DegSVLz-v5YsHHMnEz" target="_blank">Constitutionalism And The Criminal Law: Rethinking Criminal Trial Bifurcation</a></strong><br />
Talia Fisher</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=p7tpm5cab&amp;et=1109051808552&amp;s=1&amp;e=001ylK9OgekkS-c1-xau1RJLIZTIfzIv28SZX2Y3Ewk_JgkcZaQvKalK4-4rT9ZnoqOP-r88xp9O9ggCeABDtU6CnXa2g9Xvrij1cGxd_rbL_hYpaJH_p0OKEwCNZUIAT4WWAJz_zMdSSMDWayYKxlpbUV238CoiQJpjhSCyERrlXhy2AmRR6k9yGiD_1cbQ4C4RbA1PVvXsD6-gnq8UMghrIfFRofdw169" target="_blank">Necessity Knows No Law: On Extreme Cases And Uncodifiable Necessities</a></strong><br />
Alon Harel, Assaf Sharon</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=p7tpm5cab&amp;et=1109051808552&amp;s=1&amp;e=001ylK9OgekkS_FBsi49-Pf9aZaw9v43mW679OiiFSoaS1-itpIgh9vSraAZVcVHce68Yoq3FVJQbp6sxH3zzRGL2yALURhxjcMt_ntyTAjUZBvIXcq5M8ukHW2kyWwdxV5YSbSEA7I5kzrnEj6TWGURDjiJvgTuER2L_LR5x7Sa29JV7KtkHIeNSP8uYQd4Jrhv-QeAVmoNz85hLIKXnQF2l0FkNVy-czT" target="_blank">Constitutionalizing Self-Defence</a></strong><br />
Alan Brudner</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=p7tpm5cab&amp;et=1109051808552&amp;s=1&amp;e=001ylK9OgekkS8zb_7hZlpyVRP2797EWW9UpyAw1sAC2mnEf8blB94j0rnba-Zl99jrLkPtsMknIrhvmUa8Rd0iZsGN4mdiY5qyhfz7rGDV1CISg5aDI5aEW0eJzUrgRNmSuJE1QjmsD2VV7heywhdymC7Mtuik3VRKTVa6FuoaTY_V4XMa4-WuEzWND53B5zi77VQSblPxNjpbf10tMSK7CjF7UNGSwS3g" target="_blank">The Constitution And The Right Of Self-Defence</a></strong><br />
Hamish Stewart</p>
<p><strong>Full text of <em>University of Toronto Law Journal</em> issues is available online at UTLJ Online,  Project Muse, JSTOR, HeinOnline, Westlaw, Westlaw-CARSWELL, LexisNexis and Quicklaw</strong></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2012/01/university-of-toronto-law-journal-volume-61-number-4-2011.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Florida Law Review, 64:1 (January 2012)</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2012/01/florida-law-review-641-january-2012.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2012/01/florida-law-review-641-january-2012.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2012 15:21:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Florida Law Review</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Rev Contents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.concurringopinions.com/?p=55698</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p></p>
<p>&#160;</p>
<p>Climate Change Special Issue</p>
<p>&#160;</p>
<p>INTRODUCTION</p>
<p>Lisa Heinzerling, Climate Change at EPA, 64 Fla. L. Rev. 1 (2012)&#124; PDF</p>
<p>ARTICLES</p>
<p>David Markell &#38; J.B. Ruhl, An Empirical Assessment of Climate Change in the Courts: A New Jurisprudence or Business as Usual?, 64 Fla. L. Rev. 15 (2012)&#124; PDF</p>
<p>Sarah Krakoff, Planetarian Identity Formation and the Relocalization of Environmental Law, 64 Fla. L. Rev. 87 (2012)&#124; PDF</p>
<p>Dave Owen, Critical Habitat and the Challenge of Regulating Small Harms, 64 Fla. L. Rev. 141 (2012)&#124; PDF</p>
<p>Robert W. Adler, Balancing Compassion and Risk in Climate Adaptation: U.S. Water, Drought, and Agricultural Law, 64 Fla. L. Rev. 201 (2012)&#124; PDF</p>
<p>ESSAY</p>
<p>Victor B. Flatt, Adapting Laws for a Changing World: A Systemic Approach to Climate Change Adaptation, 64 Fla. L. Rev. 269 (2012)&#124; PDF</p>
<p>CASE COMMENT</p>
<p>Allison Fischman, Preserving Legal [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.floridalawreview.com"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-47399" src="http://www.concurringopinions.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/homebanner.jpg" alt="Florida Law Review" width="540" height="66" /></a></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 20px;font-weight: bold"><a href="http://www.floridalawreview.org/volume-64-january-2012-number-1/" target="_blank">Climate Change Special Issue</a></span></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>INTRODUCTION</strong></p>
<p>Lisa Heinzerling, <em>Climate Change at EPA</em>, 64 Fla. L. Rev. 1 (2012)| <a href="http://floridalawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Heinzerling.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="color: #888888"><strong><span style="color: #888888">PDF</span></strong></span></a></p>
<p><strong>ARTICLES</strong></p>
<p>David Markell &amp; J.B. Ruhl, <em>An Empirical Assessment of Climate Change in the Courts: A New Jurisprudence or Business as Usual?</em>, 64 Fla. L. Rev. 15 (2012)| <a href="http://floridalawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Markell-Ruhl.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="color: #888888"><strong>PDF</strong></span></a></p>
<p>Sarah Krakoff, <em>Planetarian Identity Formation and the Relocalization of Environmental Law</em>, 64 Fla. L. Rev. 87 (2012)| <a href="http://floridalawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Krakoff.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="color: #888888"><strong>PDF</strong></span></a></p>
<p>Dave Owen, <em>Critical Habitat and the Challenge of Regulating Small Harms</em>, 64 Fla. L. Rev. 141 (2012)| <a href="http://floridalawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Owen.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="color: #888888"><strong>PDF</strong></span></a></p>
<p>Robert W. Adler, <em>Balancing Compassion and Risk in Climate Adaptation: U.S. Water, Drought, and Agricultural Law</em>, 64 Fla. L. Rev. 201 (2012)| <a href="http://floridalawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Adler.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="color: #888888"><strong>PDF</strong></span></a></p>
<p><strong>ESSAY</strong></p>
<p>Victor B. Flatt, <em>Adapting Laws for a Changing World: A Systemic Approach to Climate Change Adaptation</em>, 64 Fla. L. Rev. 269 (2012)| <a href="http://floridalawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Flatt.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="color: #888888"><strong>PDF</strong></span></a></p>
<p><strong>CASE COMMENT</strong></p>
<p>Allison Fischman, <em>Preserving Legal Avenues for Climate Justice in Florida Post-</em>American Electric Power, 64 Fla. L. Rev. 295 (2012)| <a href="http://floridalawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Fischman.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="color: #888888"><strong>PDF</strong></span></a></p>
<p style="text-align: center"> *     *     *</p>
<p>Have an opinion about any of these works? Consider submitting a short response for publication in the <strong><a href="http://floridalawreview.org/forum/" target="_blank"><em>Florida Law Review Forum</em></a></strong>, an online companion to our printed volume.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2012/01/florida-law-review-641-january-2012.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title></title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2012/01/harvard-law-review-online-forum.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2012/01/harvard-law-review-online-forum.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Jan 2012 20:55:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Harvard Law Review</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Harvard)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev Contents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.concurringopinions.com/?p=55822</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p></p>
<p></p>
<p>&#160;</p>
<p>Responding to Jamal Greene, The Anticanon, 125 Harv. L. Rev. 379 (2011).</p>
Is Dred Scott Really the Worst Opinion of All Time? Why Prigg Is Worse Than Dred Scott (But Is Likely to Stay Out of the “Anticanon”)
<p>Sanford Levinson :: In The Anticanon, Professor Jamal Greene examines how a particular set of cases came to constitute the “anticanon” of constitutional law, that is, cases whose names can be spoken only to be condemned.  In this response, Professor Sanford Levinson questions whether the vitriol visited upon anticanonical cases, whether by lawyers or the laity, is necessarily defensible.  Levinson suggests that anticanonical cases may be indistinguishable from cases accorded far greater respect (and, indeed, treated as “canonical” exemplars of legal craft).  Some anticanonical cases may have genuine merit [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/index.php"><img src="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/images/hlr_logo.gif" alt="Harvard Law Review" border="0" /></a></p>
<p><img src="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/images/forumcenterheader.gif" alt="Online Forum" hspace="0" vspace="0" /></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Responding to Jamal Greene, <em>The Anticanon</em>, 125 Harv. L. Rev. 379 (2011).</p>
<h3>Is Dred Scott Really the Worst Opinion of All Time? Why Prigg Is Worse Than Dred Scott (But Is Likely to Stay Out of the “Anticanon”)</h3>
<p>Sanford Levinson :: In <em>The Anticanon, </em>Professor Jamal Greene examines how a particular set of cases came to constitute the “anticanon” of constitutional law, that is, cases whose names can be spoken only to be condemned.  In this response, Professor Sanford Levinson questions whether the vitriol visited upon anticanonical cases, whether by lawyers or the laity, is necessarily defensible.  Levinson suggests that anticanonical cases may be indistinguishable from cases accorded far greater respect (and, indeed, treated as “canonical” exemplars of legal craft).  Some anticanonical cases may have genuine merit and lessons worth drawing on.  More particularly, Levinson asks why <em>Prigg v. Pennsylvania, </em>written by Justice Joseph Story, suffered neither the public obloquy nor the condemnation by professional legal academics directed at Chief Justice Taney for his opinion in <em>Dred Scott, </em>even though Greene notes that <em>Prigg </em>may be the worst Supreme Court decision of all time and <em>Dred Scott, </em>according to Levinson, contains potentially inspirational passages.  We want to believe that the canon and anticanon are separated by an impermeable wall.  But what if they are not? <a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/125/december11/forum_768.php">READ MORE</a></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Responding to Orin S. Kerr, <em>An Equilibrium-Adjustment Theory of the Fourth Amendment</em>, 125 Harv. L. Rev. 476 (2011).</p>
<h3>An Original Take on Originalism</h3>
<p>Christopher Slobogin :: In <em>An Equilibrium-Adjustment Theory of the Fourth Amendment</em>, Professor Orin Kerr argues that Fourth Amendment law ought to be structured to ensure that the balance of power between government and citizenry remains constant.  In this response, Professor Christopher Slobogin acknowledges that this equilibrium-adjustment theory is elegant and, because it rests on a relatively “neutral” historical foundation, might be attractive to judges and scholars from different perspectives.  However, contrary to Kerr’s assertion, Slobogin argues that equilibrium adjustment does not easily explain many of the Court’s cases, nor does it help address the most difficult Fourth Amendment issues facing the Court today.  The historical foundations on which it rests are often shaky or insufficiently cognizant of modern preferences.  At bottom, equilibrium-adjustment theory is originalism, and thus suffers from all of the problems associated with that methodology. <a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/125/december11/forum_758.php">READ MORE</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2012/01/harvard-law-review-online-forum.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Washington Law Review, Issue 86:4 (December 2011)</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2011/12/washington-law-review-issue-864-december-2011.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2011/12/washington-law-review-issue-864-december-2011.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Dec 2011 20:08:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Washington Law Review</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Washington)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev Contents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.concurringopinions.com/?p=55107</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p></p>
<p style="text-align: center">Volume 86  &#124;  December 2011  &#124;  Issue 4</p>
<p>Tribute:</p>
<p>IN MEMORIAM: PROFESSOR PAUL STEVEN MILLER</p>
<p>Kellye Y. Testy, Clark B. Lombardi, Chai R. Feldblum, Joseph M. Sellers, Michael E. Waterstone &#38; Michael Ashley Stein</p>
<p>&#160;</p>
<p>Articles:</p>
<p>BLINDSIGHT: HOW WE SEE DISABILITIES IN TORT LITIGATION</p>
<p>Anne Bloom with Paul Steven Miller</p>
<p>&#160;</p>
<p>FORECLOSING MODIFICATIONS: HOW SERVICER INCENTIVES DISCOURAGE LOAN MODIFICATIONS</p>
<p>Diane E. Thompson</p>
<p>&#160;</p>
<p>Comments:</p>
<p>FALSE VALOR: AMENDING THE STOLEN VALOR ACT TO CONFORM WITH THE FIRST AMENDMENT’S FRAUDULENT SPEECH EXCEPTION</p>
<p>Jeffery C. Barnum</p>
<p>&#160;</p>
<p>A “NARROW EXCEPTION” RUN AMOK: HOW COURTS HAVE MISCONSTRUED EMPLOYEE-RIGHTS LAWS’ EXCLUSION OF “POLICYMAKING” APPOINTEES, AND A PROPOSED FRAMEWORK FOR GETTING BACK ON TRACK</p>
<p>Angela Galloway</p>
<p>&#160;</p>
<p>AEDPA’S RATCHET: INVOKING THE MIRANDA RIGHT TO COUNSEL AFTER THE ANTITERRORISM AND EFFECTIVE DEATH PENALTY ACT</p>
<p>David Rubenstein</p>
<p>&#160;</p>
<p>BANISHING HABEAS JURISDICTION: WHY FEDERAL COURTS LACK JURISDICTION TO HEAR TRIBAL BANISHMENT ACTIONS</p>
<p>Mary Swift</p>
<p>&#160;</p>
<p>Table of [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.law.washington.edu/WLR/Default.aspx"><img class="aligncenter" src="http://www.law.washington.edu/wlr/images/header.gif" alt="" width="475" height="100" /></a></p>
<p style="text-align: center"><strong>Volume 86  |  December 2011  |  Issue 4</strong></p>
<p><strong>Tribute:</strong></p>
<p><a href="http://digital.law.washington.edu/dspace-law/bitstream/handle/1773.1/1079/86WLR695.pdf?sequence=1">IN MEMORIAM: PROFESSOR PAUL STEVEN MILLER</a></p>
<p>Kellye Y. Testy, Clark B. Lombardi, Chai R. Feldblum, Joseph M. Sellers, Michael E. Waterstone &amp; Michael Ashley Stein</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Articles:</strong></p>
<p><a href="http://digital.law.washington.edu/dspace-law/bitstream/handle/1773.1/1073/86WLR709.pdf?sequence=1">BLINDSIGHT: HOW WE SEE DISABILITIES IN TORT LITIGATION</a></p>
<p>Anne Bloom with Paul Steven Miller</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><a href="http://digital.law.washington.edu/dspace-law/bitstream/handle/1773.1/1074/86WLR755.pdf?sequence=1">FORECLOSING MODIFICATIONS: HOW SERVICER INCENTIVES DISCOURAGE LOAN MODIFICATIONS</a></p>
<p>Diane E. Thompson</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Comments:</strong></p>
<p><a href="http://digital.law.washington.edu/dspace-law/bitstream/handle/1773.1/1075/86WLR841.pdf?sequence=1">FALSE VALOR: AMENDING THE STOLEN VALOR ACT TO CONFORM WITH THE FIRST AMENDMENT’S FRAUDULENT SPEECH EXCEPTION</a></p>
<p>Jeffery C. Barnum</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><a href="http://digital.law.washington.edu/dspace-law/bitstream/handle/1773.1/1076/86WLR875.pdf?sequence=1">A “NARROW EXCEPTION” RUN AMOK: HOW COURTS HAVE MISCONSTRUED EMPLOYEE-RIGHTS LAWS’ EXCLUSION OF “POLICYMAKING” APPOINTEES, AND A PROPOSED FRAMEWORK FOR GETTING BACK ON TRACK</a></p>
<p>Angela Galloway</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><a href="http://digital.law.washington.edu/dspace-law/bitstream/handle/1773.1/1077/86WLR905.pdf?sequence=1">AEDPA’S RATCHET: INVOKING THE MIRANDA RIGHT TO COUNSEL AFTER THE ANTITERRORISM AND EFFECTIVE DEATH PENALTY ACT</a></p>
<p>David Rubenstein</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><a href="http://digital.law.washington.edu/dspace-law/bitstream/handle/1773.1/1078/86WLR941.pdf?sequence=1">BANISHING HABEAS JURISDICTION: WHY FEDERAL COURTS LACK JURISDICTION TO HEAR TRIBAL BANISHMENT ACTIONS</a></p>
<p>Mary Swift</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><a href="http://digital.law.washington.edu/dspace-law/bitstream/handle/1773.1/1080/86WLRno4TOC.pdf?sequence=1">Table of Contents</a></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2011/12/washington-law-review-issue-864-december-2011.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Harvard Law Review, 125:2 (2011)</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2011/12/harvard-law-review-1252-2011.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2011/12/harvard-law-review-1252-2011.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2011 18:47:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Harvard Law Review</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Harvard)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev Contents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.concurringopinions.com/?p=55044</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: center"></p>
Volume 125 · December 2011 · Number 2
<p>ARTICLES
The Anticanon
Jamal Greene</p>
<p>An Equilibrium-Adjustment Theory of the Fourth Amendment
Orin S. Kerr</p>
<p>BOOK REVIEW
The Founding Revisited
Michael J. Klarman</p>
<p>NOTES
Deweyan Democracy and the Administrative State</p>
<p>(In)efficient Breach of International Trade Law: The State of the &#8220;Free Pass&#8221; After China&#8217;s Rare Earths Export Embargo</p>
<p>RECENT CASES
D.C. Circuit Vacates District Court&#8217;s Preliminary Injunction of Federal Funding for Research Using Human Embryonic Stem Cells. — Sherley v. Sebelius, 644 F.3d 388 (D.C. Cir. 2011).</p>
<p>Ninth Circuit Holds that Exercise of Personal Jurisdiction over Company Whose Website Cultivates Significant Forum State User Base Comports with Due Process. — Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Technologies, Inc., 647 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2011).</p>
<p>D.C. Court of Appeals Allows Recovery for Emotional Harm Outside Zone of Danger. — Hedgepeth v. Whitman [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: center"><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/index.php"><img src="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/images/hlr_logo.gif" alt="Harvard Law Review" border="0" /></a></p>
<h2 style="text-align: center">Volume 125 · December 2011 · Number 2</h2>
<p><strong>ARTICLES</strong><br />
<a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/125/december11/Article_8608.php">The Anticanon</a><br />
<em>Jamal Greene</em></p>
<p><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/125/december11/Article_8618.php">An Equilibrium-Adjustment Theory of the Fourth Amendment</a><br />
<em>Orin S. Kerr</em></p>
<p><strong>BOOK REVIEW</strong><br />
<a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/125/december11/Book_Review_8628.php">The Founding Revisited</a><br />
<em>Michael J. Klarman</em></p>
<p><strong>NOTES</strong><br />
<a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/125/december11/Note_8638.php">Deweyan Democracy and the Administrative State</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/125/december11/Note_8648.php">(In)efficient Breach of International Trade Law: The State of the &#8220;Free Pass&#8221; After China&#8217;s Rare Earths Export Embargo</a></p>
<p><strong>RECENT CASES</strong><br />
<a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/125/december11/Recent_Case_8658.php">D.C. Circuit Vacates District Court&#8217;s Preliminary Injunction of Federal Funding for Research Using Human Embryonic Stem Cells. — <em>Sherley v. Sebelius</em>, 644 F.3d 388 (D.C. Cir. 2011).</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/125/december11/Recent_Case_8668.php">Ninth Circuit Holds that Exercise of Personal Jurisdiction over Company Whose Website Cultivates Significant Forum State User Base Comports with Due Process. — <em>Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Technologies, Inc.</em>, 647 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2011).</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/125/december11/Recent_Case_8678.php">D.C. Court of Appeals Allows Recovery for Emotional Harm Outside Zone of Danger. — <em>Hedgepeth v. Whitman Walker Clinic</em>, 22 A.3d 789 (D.C. 2011) (en banc).</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/125/december11/Recent_Case_8688.php">Seventh Circuit Invalidates Wisconsin Inmate Sex Change Prevention Act. — <em>Fields v. Smith</em>, 653 F.3d 550 (7th Cir. 2011).</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/125/december11/Recent_Case_8698.php">Federal Circuit Invalidates Diagnostic Method Claims as Drawn to &#8220;Abstract Mental Processes.&#8221; — <em>Association for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Patent &amp; Trademark Office</em>, 653 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2011).</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/125/december11/Recent_Case_8708.php">Seventh Circuit Holds Ban on Firing Ranges Unconstitutional. — <em>Ezell v. City of Chicago</em>, 651 F.3d 684 (7th Cir. 2011).</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/125/december11/Recent_Case_8718.php">D.C. Circuit Holds Corporations Not Immune from ATS Claims. — <em>Doe VIII v. Exxon Mobil Corp.</em>, Nos. 09-7125, 09-7127, 09-7134, 09-7135, 2011 WL 2652384 (D.C. Cir. July 8, 2011).</a></p>
<p><strong>RECENT PUBLICATIONS</strong><br />
<a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/125/december11/Recent_Publications_8728.php">Recent Publications</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2011/12/harvard-law-review-1252-2011.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hastings Law Journal, Issue 63.1 (Dec. 2011)</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2011/12/hastings-law-journal-issue-63-1-dec-2011.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2011/12/hastings-law-journal-issue-63-1-dec-2011.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Dec 2011 09:20:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Hastings Law Journal</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Hastings)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev Contents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.concurringopinions.com/?p=53886</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p></p>
<p>Hastings Law Journal, Issue 63.1 (December 2011)</p>
<p>Articles
Institutionalization, Investment Adviser Regulation, and the Hedge Fund Problem
Anita K. Krug</p>
<p>Patent-Eligible Inventions After Bilski: History and Theory
Joshua D. Sarnoff 
</p>
<p>The Psychology of Procedural Justice in the Federal Courts
Rebecca Hollander-Blumoff</p>
<p>Crime Mapping and the Fourth Amendment: Redrawing “High-Crime Areas”
Andrew Guthrie Ferguson</p>
<p>Is There a Constitutional Right to Select the Genes of One’s Offspring?
Andrew B. Coan</p>
Note
<p>Fashioning a New Look in Intellectual Property: Sui Generis Protection for the Innovative Designer
Linna T. Loangkote</p>
Hastings Law Journal Voir Dire
<p>The Hastings Law Journal&#8217;s online companion, Voir Dire, is now accepting submissions.
</p>
<p>Recent Essays:
Excluding Unemployed Workers from Job Opportunities: Why Disparate Impact Protections Still Matter
Helen Norton</p>
<p>The Supreme Court’s Open-Ended Protection Against Third-Party Retaliation
Jessica Fink</p>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.hastingslawjournal.org" target="_blank"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-40546" src="http://www.concurringopinions.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Hastings-Law-Journal.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="120" /></a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.hastingslawjournal.org" target="_blank">Hastings Law Journal</a>, Issue 63.1 (December 2011)</p>
<p><strong>Articles</strong><br />
<a href="http://www.hastingslawjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Krug_63-HLJ-1.pdf">Institutionalization, Investment Adviser Regulation, and the Hedge Fund Problem</a><br />
<em>Anita K. Krug</em></p>
<p><a href="http://www.hastingslawjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Sarnoff_63-HLJ-53.pdf">Patent-Eligible Inventions After <em>Bilski</em>: History and Theory</a><br />
<em>Joshua D. Sarnoff </em><em><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: normal"><br />
</span></em></p>
<p><a href="http://www.hastingslawjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Hollander-Blumoff_63-HLJ-127.pdf">The Psychology of Procedural Justice in the Federal Courts</a><br />
<em>Rebecca Hollander-Blumoff</em></p>
<p><a href="http://www.hastingslawjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Ferguson_63-HLJ-179.pdf" target="_blank">Crime Mapping and the Fourth Amendment: Redrawing “High-Crime Areas”</a><br />
<em>Andrew Guthrie Ferguson</em></p>
<p><a href="http://www.hastingslawjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Coan_63-HLJ-233.pdf">Is There a Constitutional Right to Select the Genes of One’s Offspring?</a><br />
<em>Andrew B. Coan</em></p>
<div><strong>Note</strong></div>
<p><a href="http://www.hastingslawjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Loangkote_63-HLJ-297.pdf">Fashioning a New Look in Intellectual Property: Sui Generis Protection for the Innovative Designer</a><br />
<em>Linna T. Loangkote</em></p>
<div><strong>Hastings Law Journal Voir Dire</strong></div>
<p><a href="http://www.hastingslawjournal.org/voir-dire">The <em>Hastings Law Journal&#8217;</em>s online companion, <em>Voir Dire</em>, is now accepting submissions.</a><br />
<em></em></p>
<p><em>Recent Essays:</em><br />
<a href="http://www.hastingslawjournal.org/excluding-unemployed-workers">Excluding Unemployed Workers from Job Opportunities: Why Disparate Impact Protections Still Matter</a><br />
<em>Helen Norton</em></p>
<p><a href="http://www.hastingslawjournal.org/third-party-retaliation">The Supreme Court’s Open-Ended Protection Against Third-Party Retaliation</a><br />
<em>Jessica Fink</em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2011/12/hastings-law-journal-issue-63-1-dec-2011.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Boston College Law Review, Issue 52:5 (November 2011)</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2011/11/boston-college-law-review-issue-525-november-2011.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2011/11/boston-college-law-review-issue-525-november-2011.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov 2011 20:47:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Boston College Law Review</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Boston College)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev Contents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.concurringopinions.com/?p=53638</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p></p>
<p>Boston College Law Review, Issue 52:5 (November 2011)
</p>
<p>Articles
</p>
<p>Thomas P. Crocker, Presidential Power and Constitutional Responsibility, 52 B.C. L. Rev. 1551 (2011) [PDF]
</p>
<p>Babette E.L. Boliek, FCC Regulation Versus Antitrust: How Net Neutrality is Defining the Boundaries, 52 B.C. L. Rev. 685 (2011) 1627 [PDF]
</p>
<p>Bryan Clark &#38; Amanda C. Leiter, Regulatory Hide and Seek: What Agencies Can (and Can&#8217;t) Do to Limit Judicial Review, 52 B.C. L. Rev. 1687 (2011) [PDF]
</p>
<p>Brendan S. Maher, The Benefits of Opt-in Federalism, 52 B.C. L. Rev. 1733 (2011) [PDF]
</p>
<p>Notes
</p>
<p>Vincent Chiappini, How American Are American Depository Receipts? ADRs, Rule 10b-5 Suits, and Morrison v. National Australia Bank, 52 B.C. L. Rev. 1795 (2011) [PDF]
</p>
<p>Randall L. Newsom, Cease and Desist: Finding an Equitable Solution in Trademark Disputes Between High Schools and Colleges, 52 [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/images/BC-logo2.jpg" /></p>
<p><b><i>Boston College Law Review</i>, Issue 52:5 (November 2011)</b>
</p>
<p><b>Articles</b>
</p>
<p>Thomas P. Crocker, <i>Presidential Power and Constitutional Responsibility</i>, 52 B.C. L. Rev. 1551 (2011) [<a href="http://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/schools/law/bclawreview/pdf/52_5/01_crocker.pdf">PDF</a>]
</p>
<p>Babette E.L. Boliek, <i>FCC Regulation Versus Antitrust: How Net Neutrality is Defining the Boundaries</i>, 52 B.C. L. Rev. 685 (2011) 1627 [<a href="http://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/schools/law/bclawreview/pdf/52_5/02_boliek.pdf">PDF</a>]
</p>
<p>Bryan Clark &amp; Amanda C. Leiter, <i>Regulatory Hide and Seek: What Agencies Can (and Can&#8217;t) Do to Limit Judicial Review</i>, 52 B.C. L. Rev. 1687 (2011) [<a href="http://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/schools/law/bclawreview/pdf/52_5/03_leiter%20and%20clark.pdf">PDF</a>]
</p>
<p>Brendan S. Maher, <i>The Benefits of Opt-in Federalism</i>, 52 B.C. L. Rev. 1733 (2011) [<a href="http://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/schools/law/bclawreview/pdf/52_5/04_maher.pdf">PDF</a>]
</p>
<p><b>Notes</b>
</p>
<p>Vincent Chiappini, <i>How American Are American Depository Receipts? ADRs, Rule 10b-5 Suits, and </i>Morrison v. National Australia Bank<i></i>, 52 B.C. L. Rev. 1795 (2011) [<a href="http://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/schools/law/bclawreview/pdf/52_5/05_chiappini.pdf">PDF</a>]
</p>
<p>Randall L. Newsom, <i>Cease and Desist: Finding an Equitable Solution in Trademark Disputes Between High Schools and Colleges</i>, 52 B.C. L. Rev. 1833 (2011) [<a>PDF</a>]
</p>
<p>Kevin C. Quigley, <i>Uncorking </i>Granholm<i>: Extending the Nondiscrimination Principle to All Interstate Commerce in Wine</i>, 52 B.C. L. Rev. 1871 (2011) [<a href="http://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/schools/law/bclawreview/pdf/52_5/07_quigley.pdf">PDF</a>]
</p>
<p>Eli R. Shindelman, <i>Time for the Court to Become &#8220;Intimate&#8221; with Surveillance Technology</i>, 52 B.C. L. Rev. 1909 (2011) [<a href="http://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/schools/law/bclawreview/pdf/52_5/08_shindelman.pdf">PDF</a>]
</p>
<p><i>Contents of <a href="http://www.bc.edu/schools/law/lawreviews/bclawreview.html">current</a> and <a href="http://www.bc.edu/schools/law/lawreviews/bclawreview/Past_Issues.html">past</a> issues are available at our website.</i></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2011/11/boston-college-law-review-issue-525-november-2011.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Harvard Law Review, 125:1 (2011)</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2011/11/harvard-law-review-1251-2011.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2011/11/harvard-law-review-1251-2011.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Nov 2011 20:26:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Harvard Law Review</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Harvard)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev Contents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.concurringopinions.com/?p=53479</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: center"></p>
Volume 125 · November 2011 · Number 1
<p>&#160;</p>
The Supreme Court 2010 Term
<p>&#160;
FOREWORD
Neutral Principles, Motivated Cognition, and Some Problems for Constitutional Law
Dan M. Kahan
&#160;
COMMENT
Fairness in Numbers: A Comment on AT&#38;T v. Concepcion, Wal-Mart v. Dukes, and Turner v. Rogers
Judith Resnik
&#160;
LEADING CASES</p>
<p>FIRST AMENDMENT
Establishment Clause — Taxpayer Standing: Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v.Winn </p>
<p>Freedom of Speech — Categorical Exclusions: Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass’n</p>
<p>Freedom of Speech — Mixed Public-Private Speech: Snyder v. Phelps</p>
<p>Freedom of Speech — Campaign Finance Regulation: Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett </p>
<p>FOURTH AMENDMENT
Exigent Circumstances Exception: Kentucky v. King</p>
<p>Material Witness Statute: Ashcroft v. al-Kidd</p>
<p>Right to Informational Privacy: NASA v. Nelson</p>
<p>FIFTH AMENDMENT
Self-Incrimination Clause: J.D.B. v. North Carolina</p>
<p>SIXTH AMENDMENT
Confrontation Clause: Bullcoming v. New Mexico</p>
<p>EIGHTH AMENDMENT
Prison Population Reduction Order: Brown v. Plata</p>
<p>SEPARATION [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: center"><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/index.php"><img src="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/images/hlr_logo.gif" alt="Harvard Law Review" border="0" /></a></p>
<h2 style="text-align: center">Volume 125 · November 2011 · Number 1</h2>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<h1>The Supreme Court 2010 Term</h1>
<p>&nbsp;<br />
<strong>FOREWORD</strong><br />
<a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/125/november11/Foreword_8358.php">Neutral Principles, Motivated Cognition, and Some Problems for Constitutional Law</a><br />
<em>Dan M. Kahan</em><br />
&nbsp;<br />
<strong>COMMENT</strong><br />
<a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/125/november11/Comment_8368.php">Fairness in Numbers: A Comment on <em>AT&amp;T v. Concepcion, Wal-Mart v. Dukes</em>, and <em>Turner v. Rogers</em></a><br />
<em>Judith Resnik</em><br />
&nbsp;<br />
<strong>LEADING CASES</strong></p>
<p>FIRST AMENDMENT<br />
<a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/125/november11/Leading_Case_8378.php">Establishment Clause — Taxpayer Standing: <em>Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v.Winn </em></a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/125/november11/Leading_Case_8598.php">Freedom of Speech — Categorical Exclusions: <em>Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass’n</em></a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/125/november11/Leading_Case_8398.php">Freedom of Speech — Mixed Public-Private Speech: <em>Snyder v. Phelps</em></a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/125/november11/Leading_Case_8588.php">Freedom of Speech — Campaign Finance Regulation: <em>Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett</em> </a></p>
<p>FOURTH AMENDMENT<br />
<a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/125/november11/Leading_Case_8418.php">Exigent Circumstances Exception: <em>Kentucky v. King</em></a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/125/november11/Leading_Case_8428.php">Material Witness Statute: <em>Ashcroft v. al-Kidd</em></a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/125/november11/Leading_Case_8438.php">Right to Informational Privacy: <em>NASA v. Nelson</em></a></p>
<p>FIFTH AMENDMENT<br />
<a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/125/november11/Leading_Case_8448.php">Self-Incrimination Clause: <em>J.D.B. v. North Carolina</em></a></p>
<p>SIXTH AMENDMENT<br />
<a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/125/november11/Leading_Case_8458.php">Confrontation Clause: <em>Bullcoming v. New Mexico</em></a></p>
<p>EIGHTH AMENDMENT<br />
<a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/125/november11/Leading_Case_8468.php">Prison Population Reduction Order: <em>Brown v. Plata</em></a></p>
<p>SEPARATION OF POWERS<br />
<a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/125/november11/Leading_Case_8478.php">Displacement of Federal Common Law: <em>American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut</em></a></p>
<p>FEDERAL PREEMPTION OF STATE LAW<br />
<a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/125/november11/Leading_Case_8488.php">Agency Deference: <em>Williamson v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc.</em></a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/125/november11/Leading_Case_8498.php">Immigration Law: <em>Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting</em></a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/125/november11/Leading_Case_8508.php">Tort Law: <em>Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC</em></a></p>
<p>PERSONAL JURISDICTION<br />
<a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/125/november11/Leading_Case_8518.php">Stream-of-Commerce Doctrine: <em> J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro</em></a></p>
<p>42 U.S.C. § 1983<br />
<a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/125/november11/Leading_Case_8528.php">Postconviction Access to DNA Evidence: <em>Skinner v. Switzer</em></a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/125/november11/Leading_Case_8538.php">Scope of Municipal Liability: <em>Connick v. Thompson</em></a></p>
<p>FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT<br />
<a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/125/november11/Leading_Case_8548.php">Personnel Exemption: <em>Milner v. Department of the Navy</em></a></p>
<p>PATENT ACT OF 1952<br />
<a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/125/november11/Leading_Case_8558.php">Standard of Proof: <em>Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Partnership</em></a><br />
&nbsp;<br />
<strong>STATISTICS</strong><br />
<a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/125/november11/Statistics_8568.php">The Statistics</a></p>
<p><strong>RECENT PUBLICATIONS</strong><br />
<a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/125/november11/Recent_Publications_8578.php">Recent Publications</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2011/11/harvard-law-review-1251-2011.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Florida Law Review, 63:6 (December 2011)</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2011/11/florida-law-review-636-decembe-2011.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2011/11/florida-law-review-636-decembe-2011.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Nov 2011 17:59:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Florida Law Review</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Rev Contents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.concurringopinions.com/?p=52455</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p></p>
<p>&#160;</p>
<p>Volume 63, Issue 6 (December 2011):</p>
<p>&#160;</p>
<p>DUNWODY DISTINGUISHED LECTURE IN LAW</p>
<p>Richard A. Epstein, The Constitutional Paradox of the Durbin Amendment: How Monopolies Are Offered Constitutional Protections Denied to Competitive Firms, 63 Fla. L. Rev. 1307 (2011)&#124; PDF</p>
<p>ARTICLES</p>
<p>Jeffrey Manns, Building Better Bailouts: The Case for a Long-Term Investment Approach, 63 Fla. L. Rev. 1349 (2011)&#124; PDF</p>
<p>Scott A. Moss, The Overhyped Path from Tinker to Morse: How the Student Speech Cases Show the Limits of Supreme Court Decisions &#8211; for the Law and for the Litigants, 63 Fla. L. Rev. 1407 (2011)&#124; PDF</p>
<p>NOTES</p>
<p>Courtney Gaughan, Some More Watters, Please: The Dodd-Frank Act&#8217;s New Preemption Standards Lighten Consumers&#8217; Wallets, 63 Fla. L. Rev. 1459 (2011)&#124; PDF</p>
<p>Jordan E. Pratt, An Open and Shut Case: Why (and How) the Eleventh Circuit Should [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.floridalawreview.com"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-47399" src="http://www.concurringopinions.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/homebanner.jpg" alt="Florida Law Review" width="540" height="66" /></a></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.floridalawreview.org/volume-63-december-2011-number-6/" target="_blank"><strong>Volume 63, Issue 6 (December 2011):</strong></a></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>DUNWODY DISTINGUISHED LECTURE IN LAW</strong></p>
<p>Richard A. Epstein, <em>The Constitutional Paradox of the Durbin Amendment: How Monopolies Are Offered Constitutional Protections Denied to Competitive Firms</em>, 63 Fla. L. Rev. 1307 (2011)| <a href="http://floridalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Epstein_BOOK.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="color: #888888"><strong><span style="color: #888888">PDF</span></strong></span></a></p>
<p><strong>ARTICLES</strong></p>
<p>Jeffrey Manns, <em>Building Better Bailouts: The Case for a Long-Term Investment Approach</em>, 63 Fla. L. Rev. 1349 (2011)| <a href="http://floridalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Manns_BOOK.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="color: #888888"><strong>PDF</strong></span></a></p>
<p>Scott A. Moss, <em>The Overhyped Path from </em>Tinker<em> to </em>Morse<em>: How the Student Speech Cases Show the Limits of Supreme Court Decisions &#8211; for the Law and for the Litigants</em>, 63 Fla. L. Rev. 1407 (2011)| <a href="http://floridalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Moss_BOOK.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="color: #888888"><strong>PDF</strong></span></a></p>
<p><strong>NOTES</strong></p>
<p>Courtney Gaughan, <em>Some More </em>Watters<em>, Please: The Dodd-Frank Act&#8217;s New Preemption Standards Lighten Consumers&#8217; Wallets</em>, 63 Fla. L. Rev. 1459 (2011)| <a href="http://floridalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Gaughan_BOOK.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="color: #888888"><strong>PDF</strong></span></a></p>
<p>Jordan E. Pratt, <em>An Open and Shut Case: Why (and How) the Eleventh Circuit Should Restrain the Government&#8217;s Forum Closure Power</em>, 63 Fla. L. Rev. 1487 (2011)| <a href="http://floridalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Pratt_BOOK.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="color: #888888"><strong>PDF</strong></span></a></p>
<p>Kathryn A. Kimball, <em>Losing Our Soul: Judicial Discretion in Sentencing Child Pornography Offenders</em>, 63 Fla. L. Rev. 1515 (2011)| <a href="http://floridalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Kimball_BOOK.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="color: #888888"><strong>PDF</strong></span></a></p>
<p><strong>CASE COMMENT</strong></p>
<p>Caycee Hampton, <em>Confirmation of a Catch-22: </em>Glik v. Cunniffe<em> and the Paradox of Citizen Recording</em>, 63 Fla. L. Rev. 1549 (2011)| <a href="http://floridalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Hampton_BOOK.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="color: #888888"><strong>PDF</strong></span></a></p>
<p style="text-align: center"> *     *     *</p>
<p>Have an opinion about any of these works? Consider submitting a short response for publication in the <strong><a href="http://floridalawreview.org/forum/" target="_blank"><em>Florida Law Review Forum</em></a></strong>, an online companion to our printed volume.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2011/11/florida-law-review-636-decembe-2011.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Illinois Law Review, Issue 2011:5 (October 2011)</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2011/10/illinois-law-review-issue-20115-october-2011.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2011/10/illinois-law-review-issue-20115-october-2011.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Oct 2011 22:00:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>University of Illinois Law Review</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Illinois)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev Contents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.concurringopinions.com/?p=52111</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p></p>
<p style="text-align: center">University of Illinois Law Review, Issue 2011:5</p>
<p style="text-align: center">Please see our website for past issues</p>
Symposium: Law and Economics Conference to Honor Thomas S. Ulen
<p>Introduction &#8211; John Colombo  (PDF)</p>
<p>Law and Economics in Japan &#8211; J. Mark Ramseyer  (PDF)</p>
<p>Maturing into Normal Science: The Effect of Empirical Legal Studies on Law and Economics &#8211; Robert Cooter  (PDF)</p>
<p>Formats for Law and Economics in Legal Scholarship: Views and Wishes from Europe &#8211; Carole M. Billiet  (PDF)</p>
<p>The Law and Economics of Legal Parochialism &#8211; Nuno Garoupa  (PDF)</p>
<p>Two Culture Problems in Law and Economics &#8211; Alan Schwartz  (PDF)</p>
<p>The Future of Law and Finance After the Financial Crisis: New Perspectives on Regulation and Corporate Governance for Banks &#8211; Dirk Heremans &#38; Katrien Bosquet  (PDF)</p>
<p>The Legal Academy As Dinner Party: A (Short) Manifesto on the Necessity of Inter-Interdisciplinary Legal [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/"><img class="aligncenter size-large wp-image-45685" src="http://www.concurringopinions.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/illinois_logo-550x90.gif" alt="University of Illinois Law Review Logo" width="550" height="90" /></a></p>
<p style="text-align: center"><a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/volume/2011/#number5">University of Illinois Law Review, Issue 2011:5</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center"><em>Please see our website for <a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/archives/">past issues</a></em></p>
<h3>Symposium: Law and Economics Conference to Honor Thomas S. Ulen</h3>
<p><a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/article/introduction2">Introduction</a><em> &#8211; John Colombo</em>  (<a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/ilr-content/articles/2011/5/Colombo.Introduction.pdf">PDF</a>)</p>
<p><a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/article/law-and-economics-in-japan">Law and Economics in Japan</a><em> &#8211; J. Mark Ramseyer</em>  (<a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/ilr-content/articles/2011/5/Ramseyer.pdf">PDF</a>)</p>
<p><a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/article/maturing-into-normal-science-the-effect-of-empirical-legal-studies-on-law-and-economics">Maturing into Normal Science: The Effect of Empirical Legal Studies on Law and Economics</a><em> &#8211; Robert Cooter</em>  (<a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/ilr-content/articles/2011/5/Cooter.pdf">PDF</a>)</p>
<p><a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/article/formats-for-law-and-economics-in-legal-scholarship-views-and-wishes-from-europe">Formats for Law and Economics in Legal Scholarship: Views and Wishes from Europe</a><em> &#8211; Carole M. Billiet</em>  (<a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/ilr-content/articles/2011/5/Billiet.pdf">PDF</a>)</p>
<p><a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/article/the-law-and-economics-of-legal-parochialism">The Law and Economics of Legal Parochialism</a><em> &#8211; Nuno Garoupa</em>  (<a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/ilr-content/articles/2011/5/Garoupa.pdf">PDF</a>)</p>
<p><a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/article/two-culture-problems-in-law-and-economics">Two Culture Problems in Law and Economics</a><em> &#8211; Alan Schwartz</em>  (<a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/ilr-content/articles/2011/5/Schwartz.pdf">PDF</a>)</p>
<p><a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/article/the-future-of-law-and-finance-after-the-financial-crisis-new-perspectives-on-regulation-and-corporate-governance-for-banks">The Future of Law and Finance After the Financial Crisis: New Perspectives on Regulation and Corporate Governance for Banks</a><em> &#8211; Dirk Heremans &amp; Katrien Bosquet</em>  (<a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/ilr-content/articles/2011/5/Heremans.pdf">PDF</a>)</p>
<p><a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/article/the-legal-academy-as-dinner-party-a-short-manifesto-on-the-necessity-of-inter-interdisciplinary-legal-scholarship">The Legal Academy As Dinner Party: A (Short) Manifesto on the Necessity of Inter-Interdisciplinary Legal Scholarship</a><em> &#8211; Paul J. Stancil</em>  (<a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/ilr-content/articles/2011/5/Stancil.pdf">PDF</a>)</p>
<p><a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/article/the-cross-atlantic-law-and-economics-divide-a-dissent">The Cross-Atlantic Law and Economics Divide: A Dissent</a><em> &#8211; Ben Depoorter &amp; Jef Demot</em>  (<a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/ilr-content/articles/2011/5/Depoorter.pdf">PDF</a>)</p>
<p><a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/article/present-bias-and-criminal-law">Present Bias and Criminal Law</a><em> &#8211; Richard H. McAdams</em>  (<a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/ilr-content/articles/2011/5/McAdams.pdf">PDF</a>)</p>
<p><a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/article/bail-ins-cyclical-effects-of-a-common-response-to-financial-crises">Bail-Ins: Cyclical Effects of a Common Response to Financial Crises</a><em> &#8211; Amitai Aviram</em>  (<a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/ilr-content/articles/2011/5/Aviram.pdf">PDF</a>)</p>
<p><a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/article/what-comes-after-victory-for-behavioral-law-and-economics">What Comes After Victory for Behavioral Law and Economics?</a><em> &#8211; Russell Korobkin</em>  (<a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/ilr-content/articles/2011/5/Korobkin.pdf">PDF</a>)</p>
<p><a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/article/the-psychological-foundations-of-behavioral-law-and-economics">The Psychological Foundations of Behavioral Law and Economics</a><em> &#8211; Jeffrey J. Rachlinski</em>  (<a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/ilr-content/articles/2011/5/Rachlinski.pdf">PDF</a>)</p>
<p><a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/article/the-optimism-bias-of-the-behavioral-analysis-of-crime-control">The Optimism Bias of the Behavioral Analysis of Crime Control</a><em> &#8211; Doron Teichman</em>  (<a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/ilr-content/articles/2011/5/Teichman.pdf">PDF</a>)</p>
<p><a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/article/the-origins-nature-and-promise-of-empirical-legal-studies-and-a-response-to-concerns">The Origins, Nature, and Promise of Empirical Legal Studies and a Response to Concerns</a><em> &#8211; Theodore Eisenberg</em>  (<a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/ilr-content/articles/2011/5/Eisenberg.pdf">PDF</a>)</p>
<p><a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/article/an-empirical-analysis-of-empirical-legal-scholarship-production-19902009">An Empirical Analysis of Empirical Legal Scholarship Production, 1990–2009</a><em> &#8211; Michael Heise</em>  (<a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/ilr-content/articles/2011/5/Heise.pdf">PDF</a>)</p>
<p><a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/article/measuring-maximizing-judges-empirical-legal-studies-public-choice-theory-and-judicial-behavior">Measuring Maximizing Judges: Empirical Legal Studies, Public Choice Theory, and Judicial Behavior</a><em> &#8211; Joanna Shepherd</em>  (<a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/ilr-content/articles/2011/5/Shepherd.pdf">PDF</a>)</p>
<p><a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/article/very-like-a-law-professor-an-essay-in-honor-of-tom-ulen">Very Like a Law Professor: An Essay in Honor of Tom Ulen</a><em> &#8211; Ian Ayres</em>  (<a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/ilr-content/articles/2011/5/Ayres.pdf">PDF</a>)</p>
<p><a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/article/empiricism-and-the-rising-incidence-of-coauthorship-in-law">Empiricism and the Rising Incidence of Coauthorship in Law</a><em> &#8211; Tom Ginsburg &amp; Thomas J. Miles</em>  (<a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/ilr-content/articles/2011/5/Ginsburg.pdf">PDF</a>)</p>
<h3>Notes</h3>
<p><a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/article/whos-behind-door-number-one-problems-with-using-confidential-sources-in-securities-litigation">Who’s Behind Door Number One?: Problems with Using Confidential Sources in Securities Litigation</a><em> &#8211; David Artman</em>  (<a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/ilr-content/articles/2011/5/Artman.pdf">PDF</a>)</p>
<p><a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/article/whose-right-is-it-anywaythe-evisceration-of-an-infringers-seventh-amendment-right-in-patent-litigation">Whose Right Is It Anyway?:The Evisceration of an Infringer’s Seventh Amendment Right in Patent Litigation</a><em> &#8211; Devon Curtis Beane</em>  (<a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/ilr-content/articles/2011/5/Curtis.pdf">PDF</a>)</p>
<p><a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/article/keep-it-quiet-how-facially-neutral-affirmative-action-passes-constitutional-scrutiny">Keep it Quiet: How Facially Neutral Affirmative Action Passes Constitutional Scrutiny	</a><em> &#8211; Alan Wendler Hersh</em>  (<a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/ilr-content/articles/2011/5/Hersh.pdf">PDF</a>)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2011/10/illinois-law-review-issue-20115-october-2011.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>University of Toronto Law Journal &#8211; Volume 61, Number 3 /2011</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2011/10/university-of-toronto-law-journal-volume-61-number-3-2011.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2011/10/university-of-toronto-law-journal-volume-61-number-3-2011.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Oct 2011 11:54:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>University of Toronto Law Journal</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Toronto)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev Contents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.concurringopinions.com/?p=49428</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>University of Toronto Law Journal &#8211; Volume 61, Number 3 / 2011 </p>
<p></p>
<p>A Contextual Approach To The Admissibility Of The State&#8217;s Forensic Science And Medical Evidence
Gary Edmond, Kent Roach</p>
<p>Equality Under And Before The Law
William Lucy</p>
<p>Property And Collective Undertaking: The Principle Of Numerus Clausus
Avihay Dorfman</p>
<p>Book Reviews
William Kaplan: Canadian maverick: The life and times of Ivan C Rand
David Dyzenhaus</p>
<p>Michael Grossberg &#38; Christopher Tomlins, Eds: The Cambridge history of law in America; vol 1, Early America (1580–1815); vol 2, The long nineteenth century (1789–1920)
Philip Girard</p>
<p>William E Conklin: Hegel’s laws: The legitimacy of a modern legal order
Whitten Sullivan Watson</p>
<p>Mary Sarah Bilder, Maeva Marcus, &#38; R Kent Newmyer, Eds: Blackstone in America: Selected essays of Kathryn Preyer
Angela Fernandez</p>
<p>Andrew Petter: The politics of the Charter: The illusive promise of constitutional rights
Hamish [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>University of Toronto Law Journal &#8211; <a href="http://utpjournals.metapress.com/content/xp763482858r/" target="_blank">Volume 61, Number 3 / 2011 </a></strong></p>
<p><a href="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2011/05/university-of-toronto-law-journal-volume-61-number-1-2011.html/utlj-logo-5" rel="attachment wp-att-44557"><img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-44557" src="http://www.concurringopinions.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/utlj-logo-300x156.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="156" /></a></p>
<p><a href="http://utpjournals.metapress.com/content/915742n71q115527/?p=6621e1370bdf49b380a99d8d58b6eef5&amp;pi=0" target="_blank"><strong>A Contextual Approach To The Admissibility Of The State&#8217;s Forensic Science And Medical Evidence</strong></a><br />
Gary Edmond, Kent Roach</p>
<p><a href="http://utpjournals.metapress.com/content/q46855384g8m4445/?p=6621e1370bdf49b380a99d8d58b6eef5&amp;pi=1" target="_blank"><strong>Equality Under And Before The Law</strong></a><br />
William Lucy</p>
<p><a href="http://utpjournals.metapress.com/content/q91771682utm01j6/?p=6621e1370bdf49b380a99d8d58b6eef5&amp;pi=2" target="_blank"><strong>Property And Collective Undertaking: The Principle Of Numerus Clausus</strong></a><br />
Avihay Dorfman</p>
<p><a href="http://utpjournals.metapress.com/content/q4538124w3757747/?p=6621e1370bdf49b380a99d8d58b6eef5&amp;pi=3" target="_blank"><strong>Book Reviews</strong></a><br />
William Kaplan: <strong>Canadian maverick: The life and times of Ivan C Rand</strong><br />
David Dyzenhaus</p>
<p>Michael Grossberg &amp; Christopher Tomlins, Eds: <strong>The Cambridge history of law in America; vol 1, Early America (1580–1815); vol 2, The long nineteenth century (1789–1920)</strong><br />
Philip Girard</p>
<p>William E Conklin: <strong>Hegel’s laws: The legitimacy of a modern legal order</strong><br />
Whitten Sullivan Watson</p>
<p>Mary Sarah Bilder, Maeva Marcus, &amp; R Kent Newmyer, Eds: <strong>Blackstone in America: Selected essays of Kathryn Preyer</strong><br />
Angela Fernandez</p>
<p>Andrew Petter: <strong>The politics of the Charter: The illusive promise of constitutional rights</strong><br />
Hamish Stewart</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Full text of <em>University of Toronto Law Journal</em> issues is available online at UTLJ Online,  Project Muse, JSTOR, HeinOnline, Westlaw, Westlaw-CARSWELL, LexisNexis and Quicklaw</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2011/10/university-of-toronto-law-journal-volume-61-number-3-2011.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Boston College Law Review, Issue 52:4 (September 2011)</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2011/09/boston-college-law-review-issue-524-september-2011.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2011/09/boston-college-law-review-issue-524-september-2011.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Sep 2011 12:54:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Boston College Law Review</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Boston College)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev Contents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.concurringopinions.com/?p=51308</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p></p>
<p>Boston College Law Review, Issue 52:4 (September 2011)
</p>
<p>Articles
</p>
<p>Gregory C. Shaffer &#38; Mark A. Pollack, Hard Versus Soft Law in International Security, 52 B.C. L. Rev. 1147 (2011) [PDF]
</p>
<p>Roger A. Fairfax, Jr., Prosecutorial Nullification, 52 B.C. L. Rev. 685 (2011) 7243 [PDF]
</p>
<p>Michael Grynberg, The Judicial Role in Trademark Law, 52 B.C. L. Rev. 1283 (2011) [PDF]
</p>
<p>Laura A. Heymann, The Law of Reputation and the Interest of the Audience, 52 B.C. L. Rev. 1341 (2011) [PDF]
</p>
<p>Notes
</p>
<p>Emily C. Gainor, Initial Disclosures and Discovery Reform in the Wake of Plausible Pleading Standards, 52 B.C. L. Rev. 1441 (2011) [PDF]
</p>
<p>Katherine A. McAllister, A Distinction Without a Difference? ERISA Preemption and the Untenable Differential Treatment of Revocation-on-Divorce and Slayer Statutes, 52 B.C. L. Rev. 1481 (2011) [PDF]
</p>
<p>Sebastian Waisman, Pullman Abstention in [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/images/BC-logo2.jpg" /></p>
<p><b><i>Boston College Law Review</i>, Issue 52:4 (September 2011)</b>
</p>
<p><b>Articles</b>
</p>
<p>Gregory C. Shaffer &amp; Mark A. Pollack, <i>Hard Versus Soft Law in International Security</i>, 52 B.C. L. Rev. 1147 (2011) [<a href="http://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/schools/law/bclawreview/pdf/52_4/01_shaffer_pollack.pdf">PDF</a>]
</p>
<p>Roger A. Fairfax, Jr., <i>Prosecutorial Nullification</i>, 52 B.C. L. Rev. 685 (2011) 7243 [<a href="http://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/schools/law/bclawreview/pdf/52_4/02_fairfax.pdf">PDF</a>]
</p>
<p>Michael Grynberg, <i>The Judicial Role in Trademark Law</i>, 52 B.C. L. Rev. 1283 (2011) [<a href="http://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/schools/law/bclawreview/pdf/52_4/03_grynberg.pdf">PDF</a>]
</p>
<p>Laura A. Heymann, <i>The Law of Reputation and the Interest of the Audience</i>, 52 B.C. L. Rev. 1341 (2011) [<a href="http://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/schools/law/bclawreview/pdf/52_4/04_heymann.pdf">PDF</a>]
</p>
<p><b>Notes</b>
</p>
<p>Emily C. Gainor, <i>Initial Disclosures and Discovery Reform in the Wake of Plausible Pleading Standards</i>, 52 B.C. L. Rev. 1441 (2011) [<a href="http://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/schools/law/bclawreview/pdf/52_4/05_gainor.pdf">PDF</a>]
</p>
<p>Katherine A. McAllister, <i>A Distinction Without a Difference? ERISA Preemption and the Untenable Differential Treatment of Revocation-on-Divorce and Slayer Statutes</i>, 52 B.C. L. Rev. 1481 (2011) [<a href="http://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/schools/law/bclawreview/pdf/52_4/06_mcallister.pdf">PDF</a>]
</p>
<p>Sebastian Waisman, Pullman <i>Abstention in Preemption Cases</i>, 52 B.C. L. Rev. 1515 (2011) [<a href="http://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/schools/law/bclawreview/pdf/52_4/07_waisman.pdf">PDF</a>]
</p>
<p><i>Contents of <a href="http://www.bc.edu/schools/law/lawreviews/bclawreview.html">current</a> and <a href="http://www.bc.edu/schools/law/lawreviews/bclawreview/Past_Issues.html">past</a> issues are available at our website.</i></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2011/09/boston-college-law-review-issue-524-september-2011.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hastings Law Journal, Issue 62.6 (July, 2011)</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2011/08/hastings-law-journal-issue-62-6-july-2011.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2011/08/hastings-law-journal-issue-62-6-july-2011.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Sep 2011 01:55:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Hastings Law Journal</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Hastings)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev Contents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.concurringopinions.com/?p=50075</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p></p>
<p>&#160;</p>
<p>Hastings Law Journal, Issue 62.6 (July, 2011)</p>
<p>Articles
Network Accountability for the Domestic Intelligence Apparatus
Danielle Keats Citron and Frank Pasquale</p>
<p>Severability of Statutes
Tom Campbell
</p>
<p>Race Audits
R.A. Lenhardt</p>
<p>Jury 2.0
Caren Myers Morrison</p>
<p>The New Common Law: Courts, Culture, and the Localization of the Model Penal Code
Anders Walker</p>
<p>Forced Federalism: States as Laboratories of Immigration Reform
Keith Cunningham-Parmeter</p>
<p>Apportioning Liability Behind a Veil of Uncertainty
J. Shahar Dillbary</p>
Notes
<p>Someone is Watching: The Need for Enhanced Data Protection
Nic Roethlisberger</p>
<p>Bridging the Gap: An Application of Social Frameworks  Evidence to Shaken Baby Syndrome
Lauren Quint</p>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2011/02/hastings-law-journal-issue-62-2-december-2010.html/hastings-law-journal" rel="attachment wp-att-40546"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-40546" src="http://www.concurringopinions.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Hastings-Law-Journal.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="120" /></a></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.hastingslawjournal.org" target="_blank">Hastings Law Journal</a>, Issue 62.6 (July, 2011)</p>
<p><strong>Articles</strong><br />
<a href="http://www.hastingslawjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/CitronPasquale_62-HLJ-1441.pdf">Network Accountability for the Domestic Intelligence Apparatus</a><br />
<em>Danielle Keats Citron and Frank Pasquale</em></p>
<p><a href="http://www.hastingslawjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Campbell_62-HLJ-1495.pdf">Severability of Statutes</a><br />
<em>Tom Campbell</em><em><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: normal"><br />
</span></em></p>
<p><a href="http://www.hastingslawjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Lenhardt_62-HLJ-1527.pdf">Race Audits</a><br />
<em>R.A. Lenhardt</em></p>
<p><a href="http://www.hastingslawjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Morrison_62-HLJ-1579.pdf" target="_blank">Jury 2.0</a><br />
<em>Caren Myers Morrison</em></p>
<p><a href="http://www.hastingslawjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Walker_62-HLJ-1633.pdf">The New Common Law: Courts, Culture, and the Localization of the Model Penal Code</a><br />
<em>Anders Walker</em></p>
<p><a href="http://www.hastingslawjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Cunningham-Parmeter_62-HLJ-1673.pdf">Forced Federalism: States as Laboratories of Immigration Reform</a><br />
<em>Keith Cunningham-Parmeter</em></p>
<p><a href="http://www.hastingslawjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Dillbary_62-HLJ-1729.pdf">Apportioning Liability Behind a Veil of Uncertainty</a><br />
<em>J. Shahar Dillbary</em></p>
<div><strong>Notes</strong></div>
<p><a href="http://www.hastingslawjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Roethlisberger_62-HLJ-1793.pdf">Someone is Watching: The Need for Enhanced Data Protection</a><br />
<em>Nic Roethlisberger</em></p>
<p><a href="http://www.hastingslawjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Quint-HLJ-1839.pdf">Bridging the Gap: An Application of Social Frameworks  Evidence to Shaken Baby Syndrome<em></em><em></em></a><em><br />
Lauren Quint</em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2011/08/hastings-law-journal-issue-62-6-july-2011.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Florida Law Review, 63:5 (September 2011)</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2011/08/florida-law-review-635-september-2011.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2011/08/florida-law-review-635-september-2011.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:17:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Florida Law Review</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Rev Contents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.concurringopinions.com/?p=49717</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p></p>
<p>&#160;</p>
<p>Volume 63, Issue 5 (September 2011):</p>
<p>&#160;</p>
<p>Articles</p>
<p>Steven L. Schwarcz, Compensating Market Value Losses: Rethinking the Theory of Damages in a Market Economy, 63 Fla. L. Rev. 1053 (2011)&#124; PDF</p>
<p>Hari M. Osofsky, Multidimensional Governance and the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill , 63 Fla. L. Rev. 1077 (2011)&#124; PDF</p>
<p>Stewart E. Sterk &#38; Kimberly J. Brunelle, Zoning Finality: Reconceptualizing Res Judicata Doctrine in Land Use Cases, 63 Fla. L. Rev. 1139 (2011)&#124; PDF</p>
<p>Jonathan Witmer-Rich, Interrogation and the Roberts Court, 63 Fla. L. Rev. 1189 (2011)&#124; PDF</p>
<p>Benjamin J. Steinberg &#38; Dwayne Antonio Robinson, Making BP&#8217;s Blood Curd-le: Duty, Economic Loss, and the Potential Cardozian Nightmare After Curd v. Mosaic Fertilizer, 63 Fla. L. Rev. 1245 (2011)&#124; PDF</p>
<p>&#160;</p>
<p>Note</p>
<p>Jacob D. Moore, The Forgotten Victim in the Human Gene Patenting Debate: Pharmaceutical [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.floridalawreview.com"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-47399" src="http://www.concurringopinions.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/homebanner.jpg" alt="Florida Law Review" width="540" height="66" /></a></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.floridalawreview.com/?page_id=3579" target="_blank"><strong>Volume 63, Issue 5 (September 2011):</strong></a></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Articles</strong></p>
<p>Steven L. Schwarcz, <em>Compensating Market Value Losses: Rethinking the Theory of Damages in a Market Economy</em>, 63 Fla. L. Rev. 1053 (2011)| <a href="http://floridalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Schwarcz_Sept2011.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="color: #888888;"><strong><span style="color: #888888;">PDF</span></strong></span></a></p>
<p>Hari M. Osofsky, <em>Multidimensional Governance and the BP </em><em>Deepwater Horizon</em> Oil Spill , 63 Fla. L. Rev. 1077 (2011)| <a href="http://floridalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Osofsky_Sept2011.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="color: #888888;"><strong>PDF</strong></span></a></p>
<p>Stewart E. Sterk &amp; Kimberly J. Brunelle, <em>Zoning Finality: Reconceptualizing Res Judicata Doctrine in Land Use Cases</em>, 63 Fla. L. Rev. 1139 (2011)| <a href="http://floridalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/SterkBrunelle_Sept2011.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="color: #888888;"><strong>PDF</strong></span></a></p>
<p>Jonathan Witmer-Rich, <em>Interrogation and the Roberts Court</em>, 63 Fla. L. Rev. 1189 (2011)| <a href="http://floridalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Witmer-Rich_Sept2011.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="color: #888888;"><strong>PDF</strong></span></a></p>
<p>Benjamin J. Steinberg &amp; Dwayne Antonio Robinson, <em>Making BP&#8217;s Blood </em><em>Curd</em>-le: Duty, Economic Loss, and the Potential Cardozian Nightmare After <em>Curd v. Mosaic Fertilizer</em>, 63 Fla. L. Rev. 1245 (2011)| <a href="http://floridalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/RobinsonSteinberg_Sept2011.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="color: #888888;"><strong>PDF</strong></span></a></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Note</strong></p>
<p>Jacob D. Moore, <em>The Forgotten Victim in the Human Gene Patenting Debate: Pharmaceutical Companies</em>, 63 Fla. L. Rev. 1277 (2011)| <a href="http://floridalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Moore_Sept2011.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="color: #888888;"><strong>PDF</strong></span></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2011/08/florida-law-review-635-september-2011.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Illinois Law Review, Issue 2011:4 (August 2011)</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2011/08/illinois-law-review-issue-20114-august-2011.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2011/08/illinois-law-review-issue-20114-august-2011.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Aug 2011 15:19:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>University of Illinois Law Review</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Illinois)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev Contents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.concurringopinions.com/?p=49026</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p></p>
<p style="text-align: center">University of Illinois Law Review, Issue 2011:4</p>
<p style="text-align: center">Please see our website for past issues</p>
Articles
<p>Disintermediating Avarice: A Legal Framework for Commercially Sustainable Microfinance &#8211; Steven L. Schwarcz  (PDF)</p>
<p>Measure Twice, Shoot Once: Higher Care for CIA-Targeted Killing &#8211; Afsheen John Radsan &#38; Richard Murphy  (PDF)</p>
<p>State Constitutional Failure &#8211; Daniel B. Rodriguez  (PDF)</p>
<p>Rescuing the Strong Precautionary Principle from Its Critics &#8211; Noah M. Sachs  (PDF)</p>
David C. Baum Memorial Lecture
<p>Transparency in Three Dimensions &#8211; Frederick Schauer  (PDF)</p>
Notes
<p>Applying Apprendi to Jury Sentencing: Why State Felony Jury Sentencing Threatens the Right to a Jury Trial &#8211; Melissa Carrington  (PDF)</p>
<p>Adjudicating in the Kingdom of Ends: A Constructivist Response to the Hart/Dworkin Debate &#8211; Matthew D. Friedlander  (PDF)</p>
<p>Getting Abused and Neglected Children into Court: A Child’s Right of Access Under the Petition Clause of the First Amendment [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/"><img class="aligncenter size-large wp-image-45685" src="http://www.concurringopinions.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/illinois_logo-550x90.gif" alt="University of Illinois Law Review Logo" width="550" height="90" /></a></p>
<p style="text-align: center"><a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/volume/2011/#number4">University of Illinois Law Review, Issue 2011:4</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center"><em>Please see our website for <a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/archives/">past issues</a></em></p>
<h3>Articles</h3>
<p><a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/article/disintermediating-avarice-a-legal-framework-for-commercially-sustainable-microfinance">Disintermediating Avarice: A Legal Framework for Commercially Sustainable Microfinance</a><em> &#8211; Steven L. Schwarcz</em>  (<a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/ilr-content/articles/2011/4/Schwarcz.pdf">PDF</a>)</p>
<p><a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/article/measure-twice-shoot-once-higher-care-for-cia-targeted-killing">Measure Twice, Shoot Once: Higher Care for CIA-Targeted Killing</a><em> &#8211; Afsheen John Radsan &amp; Richard Murphy</em>  (<a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/ilr-content/articles/2011/4/Murphy.pdf">PDF</a>)</p>
<p><a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/article/state-constitutional-failure">State Constitutional Failure</a><em> &#8211; Daniel B. Rodriguez</em>  (<a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/ilr-content/articles/2011/4/Rodriguez.pdf">PDF</a>)</p>
<p><a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/article/rescuing-the-strong-precautionary-principle-from-its-critics">Rescuing the Strong Precautionary Principle from Its Critics</a><em> &#8211; Noah M. Sachs</em>  (<a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/ilr-content/articles/2011/4/Sachs.pdf">PDF</a>)</p>
<h3>David C. Baum Memorial Lecture</h3>
<p><a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/article/transparency-in-three-dimensions">Transparency in Three Dimensions</a><em> &#8211; Frederick Schauer</em>  (<a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/ilr-content/articles/2011/4/Schauer.pdf">PDF</a>)</p>
<h3>Notes</h3>
<p><a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/article/applying-apprendi-to-jury-sentencing-why-state-felony-jury-sentencing-threatens-the-right-to-a-jury-trial">Applying Apprendi to Jury Sentencing: Why State Felony Jury Sentencing Threatens the Right to a Jury Trial</a><em> &#8211; Melissa Carrington</em>  (<a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/ilr-content/articles/2011/4/Carrington.pdf">PDF</a>)</p>
<p><a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/article/adjudicating-in-the-kingdom-of-ends-a-constructivist-response-to-the-hartdworkin-debate">Adjudicating in the Kingdom of Ends: A Constructivist Response to the Hart/Dworkin Debate</a><em> &#8211; Matthew D. Friedlander</em>  (<a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/ilr-content/articles/2011/4/Friedlander.pdf">PDF</a>)</p>
<p><a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/article/getting-abused-and-neglected-children-into-court-a-childs-right-of-access-under-the-petition-clause-of-the-first-amendment">Getting Abused and Neglected Children into Court: A Child’s Right of Access Under the Petition Clause of the First Amendment</a><em> &#8211; Ryan M. Rappa</em>  (<a href="http://illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/ilr-content/articles/2011/4/Rappa.pdf">PDF</a>)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2011/08/illinois-law-review-issue-20114-august-2011.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The University of Chicago Law Review Volume 78, Issue 2</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2011/08/the-university-of-chicago-law-review-volume-78-issue-2.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2011/08/the-university-of-chicago-law-review-volume-78-issue-2.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Aug 2011 02:50:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>University of Chicago Law Review</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Chicago)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev Contents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.concurringopinions.com/?p=49031</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p></p>
<p>Articles</p>
<p>The Alien Tort Statute and the Law of Nations
Anthony J. Bellia Jr &#38; Bradford R. Clark</p>
<p>Reconsidering Racial and Partisan Gerrymandering
Adam B. Cox &#38; Richard T. Holden</p>
<p>Strategic Liability in the Corporate Group
Richard Squire</p>
<p>Comment</p>
<p>Understanding the Statutory Tax Practitioner Privilege: What Is Tax Shelter “Promotion”?
Jared T. Meier</p>
<p>Book Reviews</p>
<p>Federalism from the Bottom Up
Gordon S. Wood
The Ideological Origins of American Federalism, Alison L. LaCroix</p>
<p>Rhetoric and Reality in Early American Legal History: A Reply to Gordon Wood
Alison L. LaCroix</p>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2011/04/the-university-of-chicago-law-review-volume-78-issue-1.html/chicago-lr-logo-2" rel="attachment wp-att-44369"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-44369" src="http://www.concurringopinions.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/chicago-lr-logo.gif" alt="" width="424" height="155" /></a></p>
<p><strong>Articles</strong></p>
<p><a href="http://lawreview.uchicago.edu/issues/backissues/v78/78_2/78-2-Bellia%20and%20Clark.pdf">The Alien Tort Statute and the Law of Nations</a><br />
Anthony J. Bellia Jr &amp; Bradford R. Clark</p>
<p><a href="http://lawreview.uchicago.edu/issues/backissues/v78/78_2/78-2-Cox%20&amp;%20Holden.pdf">Reconsidering Racial and Partisan Gerrymandering</a><br />
Adam B. Cox &amp; Richard T. Holden</p>
<p><a href="http://lawreview.uchicago.edu/issues/backissues/v78/78_2/78-2-Squire.pdf">Strategic Liability in the Corporate Group</a><br />
Richard Squire</p>
<p><strong>Comment</strong></p>
<p><a href="http://lawreview.uchicago.edu/issues/backissues/v78/78_2/78-2-Meier.pdf">Understanding the Statutory Tax Practitioner Privilege: What Is Tax Shelter “Promotion”?</a><br />
Jared T. Meier</p>
<p><strong>Book Reviews</strong></p>
<p><a href="http://lawreview.uchicago.edu/issues/backissues/v78/78_2/78-2-Wood.pdf">Federalism from the Bottom Up</a><br />
Gordon S. Wood<br />
<em>The Ideological Origins of American Federalism</em>, Alison L. LaCroix</p>
<p><a href="http://lawreview.uchicago.edu/issues/backissues/v78/78_2/78-2-LaCroix.pdf">Rhetoric and Reality in Early American Legal History: A Reply to Gordon Wood</a><br />
Alison L. LaCroix</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2011/08/the-university-of-chicago-law-review-volume-78-issue-2.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

