Site Meter

Category: Law Rev Contents

0

Northwestern University Law Review, Issue 101:4 (Fall 2007)

NW-Logo.jpg

Northwestern University Law Review, Issue 101:4 (Fall 2007)

(See here for links to articles in recent issues and the contents of forthcoming issues.)

Articles

Lee Epstein, Andrew D. Martin, Kevin M. Quinn & Jeffrey A. Segal, Ideological Drift among Supreme Court Justices: Who, When, and How Important?, 101 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1483 (2007)

M. Todd Henderson, Paying CEOs in Bankruptcy: Executive Compensation When Agency Costs are Low, 101 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1543 (2007)

Craig Allen Nard & John F. Duffy, Rethinking Patent Law’s Uniformity Principle, 101 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1619 (2007)

Jonathan Remy Nash & Richard L. Revesz, Grandfathering and Environmental Regulation: The Law and Economics of New Source Review, 101 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1677 (2007)

S. Jay Plager & Lynne E. Pettigrew, Rethinking Patent Law’s Uniformity Principle: A Response to Nard & Duffy, 101 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1735 (2007)

Essay

Katherine Y. Barnes, Is Affirmative Action Responsible for the Achievement Gap Between Black and White Law Students?, 101 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1759 (2007)

Review Essay

Russell K. Robinson, Uncovering Covering, 101 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1809 (2007)

Note

Daniel Su, Substantial Similarity and Architectural Works: Filtering Out “Total Concept and Feel”, 101 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1851 (2007)

Colloquy Essays

Linda Greenhouse, Justices Who Change: A Response to Epstein et al., 101 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1885 (2007)

Ward Farnsworth, The Use and Limits of Martin-Quinn Scores to Assess Supreme Court Justices, with Special Attention to the Problem of Ideological Drift, 101 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1891 (2007)

Ethan J. Leib, Why Supermajoritarianism Does Not Illuminate the Interpretive Debate Between Originalists and Non-Originalists, 101 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1905 (2007)

John O. McGinnis & Michael B. Rappaport, Originalism and Supermajoritarianism: Defending the Nexus, 101 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1919 (2007)

Ilya Somin, Is Post-Kelo Eminent Domain Reform Bad for the Poor?, 101 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1931 (2007)

0

George Washington Law Review, Issue 76:1 (November 2007)

GWLRbannerTOC.gif

The George Washington Law Review, Issue 76:1 (November 2007)

(Contents of current and past issues are available from our website.)

Articles:

Calvin Massey, Two Zones of Prophylaxis: The Scope of the Fourteenth Amendment Enforcement Power, 76 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1 (2007) [PDF]

Debra Lyn Bassett, Statutory Interpretation in the Context of Federal Jurisdiction, 76 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 52 (2007) [PDF]

Essay:

Jerry L. Mashaw, Reasoned Administration: The E.U., the U.S., and the Project of Democratic Governance, 76 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 99 (2007) [PDF]

Notes:

Seema Mittal, The Constitutionality of an Expedited Rescission Act: The New Line Item Veto or a New Constitutional Method of Achieving Deficit Reduction?, 76 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 125 (2007) [PDF]

Kathryn E. Vertigan, Foreign Antisuit Injunctions: Taking a Lesson from the Act of State Doctrine, 76 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 155 (2007) [PDF]

7

Announcing the Law Review Table of Contents Project

table-of-contents1.jpg

I’m pleased to announce a new feature at Concurring Opinions – the Law Review Table of Contents Project. We have invited a number of the top law reviews to post the table of contents to their new issues and to provide links to the articles if they are posted on the law review’s website.

The goal of the Table of Contents Project is to provide you with a useful research tool. Finding out about the latest law review publications can be difficult. If you’re like me, you rarely read the physical issues of law reviews anymore; and you don’t have time to constantly keep checking each law review’s website to see if a new issue has been published. Now you don’t have to. Just keep reading Concurring Opinions, and information about the latest law review scholarship will be brought to you – all in one place!

Each journal’s tables of contents will be archived in two categories: (1) a category called Law Rev Contents – collecting all the law review table of contents postings; and (2) a category for each specific law review.

Participating law reviews thus far include:

* Boston College

* Chicago

* Columbia

* Cornell

* Duke

* Emory

* Fordham

* Georgetown

* GW

* Harvard

* Indiana

* Michigan

* Minnesota

* NYU

* Northwestern

* Notre Dame

* Southern California

* Stanford

* Texas

* UCLA

* Vanderbilt

* Virginia

* Washington University

* Yale

We still have a bunch of open invitations, so we anticipate that the number of participants will grow. Unfortunately, we cannot include all law reviews, as this will overwhelm the regular content of our blog.

We hope that you find this new feature to be helpful. We’re very excited about it here, as we believe that this will be of great use to keep you informed about new legal scholarship.