Category: Law Rev Contents

0

Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 66, Number 1 (January 2013)

Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 66, Number 1 (January 2013).

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

 

ARTICLES

Tun-Jen Chiang, The Reciprocity of Search, 66 Vand. L. Rev. 1 (2013).

Michael D. Frakes & Melissa F. Wasserman, Does Agency Funding Affect Decisionmaking?: An Empirical Assessment of the PTO’s Granting Patterns, 66 Vand. L. Rev. 67 (2013).

Andrew Kent, Judicial Review for Enemy Fighters: The Court’s Fateful Turn in Ex parte Quirin, the Nazi Saboteur Case, 66 Vand. L. Rev. 153 (2013).

Joanna M. Shepherd, Products Liability and Economic Activity: An Empirical Analysis of Tort Reform’s Impact on Businesses, Employment, and Production, 66 Vand. L. Rev. 257 (2013).

 

NOTES

Taylor M. Owings, Identifying a Maverick: When Antitrust Law Should Protect a Low-Cost Competitor, 66 Vand. L. Rev. 323 (2013).

V. Blair Druhan, Severe or Pervasive: An Analysis of Who, What, and Where Matters When Determining Sexual Harassment, 66 Vand. L. Rev. 355 (2013).

 

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

0

Cardozo Law Review, Vol. 34, Issue 2


Articles

Cartels as Rational Business Strategy: Crime Pays
John M. Connor & Robert H. Lande 427

Dynamic Fiduciary Duties
Andrew S. Gold 491

The Twilight of Equity Liquidity
Jeff Schwartz 531

The Cultural Analysis Paradigm: Women and Synagogue Ritual as a Case Study
Roberta Rosenthal Kwall 609

Can a Computer Intercept Your Email?
Bruce E. Boyden 669

Discovery About Discovery: Sampling Practice and the Resolution of Discovery  Disputes in an Age of Ever-Increasing Information
Charles Yablon & Nick Landsman-Roos 719

Notes 

Terminating Beyond the Limits: CMS Is Overreaching in Its Attempt to Regulate ACOs According to Antitrust Standards
Benjamin M. Zegarelli 781

A Power and a Duty: Prosecutorial Discretion and Obligation in United States Sentencing Guideline § 3E1.1(B)
Laura Waters 813

A New Paradigm: Domicile as the Exclusive Basis for the Exercise of General Jurisdiction over Individual Defendants
Emily Eng 845

 

For more information on responding to any of these articles on Cardozo Law Review’s online companion, Cardozo Law Review de•novo, please visit us here.

1

Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 65, Number 6 (November 2012): Supply and Demand: Barriers to a New Energy Future Symposium

Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 65, Number 6 (November 2012).

The Vanderbilt Law Review is proud to announce the publication of our November issue, featuring articles from the Symposium held at Vanderbilt Law School on February 24, 2012, Supply and Demand: Barriers to a New Energy Future.

 

ARTICLES

Michael P. Vandenbergh, J.B. Ruhl & Jim Rossi, Symposium: Introduction, 65 Vand. L. Rev. 1447 (2012).

Robert H. Socolow, Truths We Must Tell Ourselves to Manage Climate Change, 65 Vand. L. Rev. 1455 (2012).

Daniel A. Farber, Sustainable Consumption, Energy Policy, and Individual Well-Being, 65 Vand. L. Rev. 1479 (2012).

Michael P. Vandenbergh & Jim Rossi, Good for You, Bad for Us: The Financial Disincentive for Net Demand Reduction, 65 Vand. L. Rev. 1527 (2012).

Katrina Fischer Kuh, Personal Environmental Information: The Promise and Perils of the Emerging Capacity to Identify Individual Environmental Harms, 65 Vand. L. Rev. 1565 (2012).

Noah M. Sachs, Can We Regulate Our Way to Energy Efficiency? Product Standards as Climate Policy, 65 Vand. L. Rev. 1631 (2012).

Uma Outka, Environmental Law and Fossil Fuels: Barriers to Renewable Energy, 65 Vand. L. Rev. 1679 (2012).

Dan Tarlock, Hydro Law and the Future of Hydoelectric Power Generation in the United States, 65 Vand. L. Rev. 1723 (2012).

J.B. Ruhl, Harmonizing Commercial Wind Power and the Endangered Species Act Through Administrative Reform, 65 Vand. L. Rev. 1769 (2012).

Alexandra B. Klass & Elizabeth J. Wilson, Interstate Transmission Challenges for Renewable Energy: A Federalism Mismatch, 65 Vand. L. Rev. 1801 (2012).

Sara C. Bronin, Building-Related Renewable Energy and the Case of 360 State Street, 65 Vand. L. Rev. 1875 (2012).

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

0

University of Toronto Law Journal – Volume 62, Number 4, Fall 2012

University of Toronto Law Journal – Volume 62, Number 4, Fall 2012

Errors of Fact and Law: Race, Space, and Hockey in Christie v York
Eric M Adams

Electoral Fairness and the Law of Democracy: A Structural Rights Approach to Judicial Review
Yasmin Dawood

The Society of Property
Avihay Dorfman

Sexual History Evidence in Cases of Sexual Assault: A Critical Re-evaluation
Liat Levanon

Full text of the University of Toronto Law Journal is available online at UTLJ Online, Project Muse, JSTOR, HeinOnline, Westlaw, Westlaw-CARSWELL, LexisNexis and Quicklaw.

0

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

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

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

 

ARTICLES

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

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

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

 

NOTES

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

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

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

0

Vanderbilt Law Review En Banc – New Publications

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

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

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

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

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

We have also published two new book reviews:

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

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

3

Florida Law Review, 64:5 (September 2012)

Florida Law Review Banner

September 2012 | Volume 64, Number 5

Articles

Benjamin H. Barton, An Empirical Study of Supreme Court Justice Pre-Appointment Experience

Chad M. Oldfather, Joseph P. Bockhorst & Brian P. Dimmer, Triangulating Judicial Responsiveness: Automated Content Analysis, Judicial Opinions, and the Methodology of Legal Scholarship

Gerard N. Magliocca, The Gold Clause Cases and Constitutional Necessity

Michael Risch, America’s First Patents

Jacqueline D. Lipton, Law of the Intermediated Information Exchange

Chad Flanders, Election Law Behind a Veil of Ignorance

Essays

Justin R. Pidot, The Invisibility of Jurisdictional Procedure and its Consequences

Scott G. Hawkins, Perspective on Judicial Merit Retention in Florida

Stuart R. Cohn, The New Crowdfunding Registration Exemption: Good Idea, Bad Execution

Note

Amanda Harris, Surpassing Sentencing: The Controversial Next Step in Confrontation Clause Jurisprudence Good Idea, Bad Execution

0

University of Toronto Law Journal – Volume 62, Number 3 Summer 2012

University of Toronto Law Journal – Volume 62, Number 3 Summer 2012

On Non-domination
Ian Shapiro

Response to Ian Shapiro, ‘On Non-domination’
David Dyzenhaus    

Contracts to the Detriment of a Third Party: Developing a Model Inspired by Jewish Law
Benjamin Porat

Culture and Competitive Resource Regulation: A Liberal Economic Alternative to Sui Generis Aboriginal Rights
Michael Ilg

Future(s) of American Legal History
Angela Fernandez

Book Reviews
Richard H Thaler and Cass R Sunstein, Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness; Daniel Kahneman, Thinking,Fast and Slow; Lior Jacob Strahilevitz, Information and Exclusion
Reviewed by Megan Lloyd Richardson

A P SIMESTER and ANDREAS VON HIRSCH, Crimes, Harms, and Wrongs: On the Principles of Criminalisation
Reviewed by Hamish Stewart

 

Full text of the University of Toronto Law Journal is available online at UTLJ Online, Project Muse, JSTOR, HeinOnline, Westlaw, Westlaw-CARSWELL, LexisNexis and Quicklaw.

0

The University of Chicago Law Review Volume 79, Issue 2

Articles

 

Which Science? Whose Science? How Scientific Disciplines Can Shape Environmental Law
Eric Biber

Suing Courts
Frederic Bloom & Christopher Serkin

After Class: Aggregate Litigation in the Wake of AT&T Mobility v Concepcion
Myriam Gilles & Gary Friedman

States of Bankruptcy
David A. Skeel Jr

 

Comments

 

The Antitrust State Action Doctrine and State Licensing Boards
Ingram Weber

 

Book Reviews

 

Binding the Executive (by Law or by Politics)
Aziz Z. Huq
A Review of “The Executive Unbound: After the Madisonian Republic,” by Eric A. Posner and Adrian Vermeule

Combating Contamination in Confession Cases
Laura H. Nirider, Joshua A. Tepfer, & Steven A. Drizin
A Review of “Convicting the Innocent: Where Criminal Prosecutions Go Wrong,” by Brandon L. Garrett

22

What Could Law Students Do With 2 Million More Hours a Year?

If you polled a large and representative sample of law faculty and administrators, you’d observe the following rough consensus about the “flagship” law reviews and secondary journals at the typical law school.

  1. Student editors do a mediocre job of picking good articles, of training each other in writing, and in producing notes and comments which matter to the world;
  2. This isn’t the students’ fault: law faculty play almost no role in journal operations at most schools;
  3. Law journal membership is useful primarily as a resume & signaling credential;
  4. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the worth of the credential is in decline; and consequently,
  5. Most members of most journals are demoralized by the experience.

Though this rough consensus prevails, the total number of law journals in the world continues to increase.  Why?  Inertia obviously matters, as do faculty politics, and fear of innovation.  But there’s something deeper going on.  I think most faculty and administrators look at journals and think that if they provide any benefit at all, they are probably worth keeping, given the costs of change and the relatively low net cost of production. But that’s a mistake.

I’m just spitballing here, but assume that roughly 20% of the 100,000 second and third year law students in this country are members of a law journal.  (This would be a conservative estimate at Temple and at most schools, given the proliferation of secondary journals.)  Further assume that those 20,000 students each spend an average of 10 hours a month for 9 months on journal work.  That would mean that students are spending almost 2 million hours a year on producing student run law journal content.  If we billed them out as cheap, $150/hour associates, that’d be around $300,000,000 of time thrown at the world-shaking problems of bluebooking and case note production.

Assume we killed all our journals tomorrow and simply published all legal scholarship on SSRN.  (There’s be enormous problems with this solution, but follow me for the sake of argument.)  What could our students do with those two million hours?  Assuming the ABA weren’t an innovation sucking force, might they actually work and reduce the cost of attending school?  Or perform pro bono service?  Obviously, students work on journals because they think they’ll get something out of the experience – or because they fear that not working on journals would be career deadening.  But it’s our fault that students are forced to that choice.  We could provide non-journal extra-curricular experiences, or better journals, that would make use of the gift of time that students are offering us.

If you could kill each and every journal at your school tomorrow, what would you replace them with?