Archive for the ‘Law Rev Forum’ Category
Cardozo Law Review, China Re-Rising
posted by Cardozo Law Review
Symposium on China’s Transition from Manufacturing to Innovation Economy Hosted by Cardozo Law Review’s Online Journal
NEW YORK, NY, April 29, 2013 — All eyes are on China in the twenty-first century, as it emerges as one of the fastest growing economies in the world. At the same time, losses in various industries are attributed to piracy—a substantial amount of which is alleged to occur within China’s borders—and the Chinese government is routinely criticized for its weak enforcement measures against counterfeiting activities and intellectual property infringement on its soil.Cardozo Law Review de•novo’s online symposium, “China Re-Rising?: Innovation and Collaboration for a Successful Twenty-First Century” focuses on China’s overall transition from a manufacturing to an innovation economy and how this transition affects IP policies and industries around the world.
The online symposium – located at http://cardozolawreview.com/de-novo-2013.html - features articles from practitioners, industry corporate counsel, professors, and Chinese IP law specialists. Esteemed participants include Chen Wang, the Deputy Chief IP Counsel of E.I. du Pont de Nemours Company; Jonathan Sallet, a Partner at O’Melveny & Myers LLP; and Professor Peter Yu, the Kern Family Chair in Intellectual Property Law and Director of the Intellectual Property Law Center at Drake University Law School.
About the Articles:
Professor Yu discusses the slowly-begun change in discourse around China’s intellectual property system, particularly in the field of patents. He presents the reader with five key questions on the state of Chinese intellectual property law and policy. His answers suggest that the future of China’s intellectual property system is dualistic and dynamic—while massive piracy and counterfeiting does continue, this ongoing issue is balanced by China’s rise as a patent power.
Professors Murphy and Orcutt discuss China’s patent subsidy program—an aspect of China’s national innovation strategy that aims to increase domestic patents and innovation through government subsidies to pay for domestic inventors’ legal costs associated with obtaining patents. Noting that the program has been criticized for failing to fund truly valuable or innovative patents, the Authors propose a unique two-stage, three-dimensional relative value technique for the Chinese government to implement in evaluating whether to fund a given patent application through the subsidy program.
Ms. Wang and Mr. Sallet in turn criticize the Chinese government’s metric-based approach to innovation. They posit that China’s emphasis on numerical goals to domestic patenting actually hampers Chinese innovation by directing resources away from research and the development of truly valuable inventions. The Authors further discuss how China’s metric-based approach frustrates the ability of multi-national corporations to collaborate effectively with Chinese companies. They conclude by identifying steps the Chinese government can take to increase local innovation through effective international collaboration.
Professor Shao calls for a holistic perspective of the Chinese innovation economy, law, and policies. His Article offers a historical and cultural perspective that aims to make a holistic approach possible for Western scholars and practitioners, who lack the knowledge of Chinese history and culture necessary to understand the context of China’s current policies. He concludes by proposing that innovation still can, and should, be the bridge to China’s successful economic transition.
Professors Murphree and Breznitz discuss China’s innovation strategy through the lens of its failed attempts to develop globally successful technology standards. The Authors attribute these failures to fragmented production and structured uncertainty implicit in the Chinese domestic market. Despite these failures, the Authors acknowledge that Chinese companies’ participation in even failed attempts does produce tangible benefits, like receiving lower royalty rates on goods they produced.
View the online symposium at http://cardozolawreview.com/de-novo-2013.html
April 29, 2013 at 1:12 pm
Tags: Cardozo Law Review, china
Posted in: Innovation, Law Rev Contents, Law Rev Forum
Print This Post
No Comments
Cardozo Law Review, Vol. 34, Issue 4
posted by Cardozo Law Review
Articles
Charter Schools, the Establishment Clause, and the Neoliberal Turn in Public Education
Aaron Saiger 1163
Challenging the Death Penalty with Statistics: Furman, McCleskey, and a Single County Case Study
Steven F. Shatz & Terry Dalton 1227
The Irony of a Faustian Bargain: A Reconsideration of the Supreme Court’s 1953 United States v. Reynolds Decision
David Rudenstine 1283
Undercover Policing, Overstated Culpability
Eda Katharine Tinto 1401
Municipal Securities: The Crisis of State and Local Government Indebtedness, Systemic Costs of Low Default Rates, and Opportunities for Reform
Christine Sgarlata Chung 1455
Notes
“That’s the Guy!”: Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(C) and Out-of-Court Statements of Identification
Gilbert M. Rein 1539
“Every Move That She Makes”: Copyright Protection for Stage Directions and the Fictional Character Standard
Deana S. Stein 1571
Quasi-Judicial Prosecutors and Post-Conviction Claims of Innocence: Granting Recusals to Make Impartiality a Reality
Rachel Pecker 1609
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.
April 19, 2013 at 12:35 pm
Tags: Cardozo Law Review, CLR
Posted in: Law Rev Contents, Law Rev Forum
Print This Post
No Comments
The Blue Book and its Times
posted by Lawrence Cunningham
Yale Robinson, a student in my Corporations class, today told me about his law review note topic, which happened to be in the same field as my Note, published back in 1987. After class, Yale went and found my Note and emailed me a report about it. In the email, Yale added:
As an aside, it is amusing to see that the Table of Contents in the Cardozo Law Review of that time does not list the author of a Note, only the title, and the first page of the Note also does not give the author’s name. You have to go to the last page to see the author’s name. I don’t know why this was done, but it appears that this omission was rectified beginning with the April 1991 issue.
I replied as follows:
The curious style you mention was the standard practice at all law reviews at all schools for [decades, since 1926,] up through 1991 when the Blue Book announced the change. Before 1991, notes were “unsigned” and citation was merely to Note, . . . rather than Cunningham, Note . . . .
Another practice changed around the same time: in the old days, only an author’s last name was used (Cunningham or Robinson etc); thereafter the first name and initial are included.
I think these changes reflect things about the times, such as elitism that wore away in the case of naming Note authors and a sense of full identity . . . in the case of the full name.
The keepers of the Blue Book keep citation practice up with the times. Looking back at the styles of earlier eras can be amusing. I wonder what other amusing anachronisms are to be found in the old style books.
You can see the covers of a dozen different editions of the Blue Book, from which the two in this post are taken, here.
February 11, 2013 at 3:47 pm
Posted in: Culture, Law Rev Forum, Law School
Print This Post
2 Comments
Cardozo Law Review, Vol. 34, Issue 2
posted by Cardozo Law Review
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.
December 23, 2012 at 12:13 am
Tags: Cardozo Law Review
Posted in: Law Rev Contents, Law Rev Forum
Print This Post
No Comments
Vanderbilt Law Review En Banc – New Publications
posted by Vanderbilt Law Review
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).
September 26, 2012 at 8:55 am
Posted in: Constitutional Law, Law Rev (Vanderbilt), Law Rev Contents, Law Rev Forum, Supreme Court
Print This Post
No Comments
Vanderbilt Law Review En Banc Fisher v. University of Texas Roundtable
posted by Vanderbilt Law Review
Vanderbilt Law Review En Banc is pleased to present the first round of our current Roundtable, which looks at Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin. Fisher will be argued in the October 2012 Supreme Court Term and the Court will consider whether the University of Texas’s use of race in its undergraduate admissions process is lawful under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Professors Vikram Amar, James Blumstein, Tomiko Brown-Nagin, Girardeau Spann, and Gerald Torres consider the issues and offer their views on how the Court might—or should—approach this case in their “First Take” articles. In approximately eight weeks, these same scholars will offer responses to each other’s essays. We look forward to a spirited debate on these interesting and often contentious issues.
Roundtable: First Takes
Is Honesty the Best (Judicial) Policy in Affirmative Action Cases? Fisher v. University of Texas Gives the Court (Yet) Another Chance to Say Yes
Vikram David Amar · 65 Vand. L. Rev. En Banc 77 (2012)
Grutter and Fisher: A Reassessment and a Preview
James F. Blumstein · 65 Vand. L. Rev. En Banc 57 (2012)
The Diversity Paradox: Judicial Review in an Age of Demographic and Educational Change
Tomiko Brown-Nagin · 65 Vand. L. Rev. En Banc 113 (2012)
Fisher v. Grutter
Girardeau A. Spann · 65 Vand. L. Rev. En Banc 45 (2012)
Fisher v. University of Texas: Living in the Dwindling Shadow of LBJ’s America
Gerald Torres · 65 Vand. L. Rev. En Banc 97 (2012)
July 24, 2012 at 9:10 pm
Posted in: Constitutional Law, Law Rev (Vanderbilt), Law Rev Contents, Law Rev Forum, Race, Supreme Court, Uncategorized
Print This Post
No Comments
Harvard Law Review Online Forum: Responding to Judge Guido Calabresi, Judge Dennis Davis, Rosalind Dixon, Dieter Grimm, Patrick O. Gudridge, Martha Minow, Margaret Jane Radin, In Tribute: Frank I. Michelman, 125 Harv. L. Rev. 879 (2012)
posted by Harvard Law Review
Provocation: Law’s Republics
Vlad Perju :: I begin with three premises: First, the relevance for any polity of the exercises in self-government of other political communities, as encoded in their constitutional laws and cultures, is not self evident and must therefore be justified. Second, that justification must place domestic and foreign law within a unitary framework by reference to which the comparativist’s choices can be defended. Third, no project of comparative constitutional law, and perhaps comparative law generally, can withstand scrutiny unless it articulates, or it signs on to some articulation, of such a framework. By placing comparative constitutional law within the larger constitutional democratic project of government by law, Professor Frank Michelman’s work gives us a framework for how the constitutional mind can approach — or “go visiting,” as Hannah Arendt put it — the experiments in collective self-determination of other free communities of equals. READ MORE
Provocation: Frank’s Way
Robert Post :: I know that Dean Martha Minow would like me to begin with a provocation, but I can’t help beginning instead with an acknowledgment. Throughout my career as a legal academic, I have always had two guiding lights, two pole stars whose integrity and depth I have trusted to steer me in the right direction. One is Owen Fiss, and the other is Frank Michelman. READ MORE
Provocation: Everyone is a Philospher!
T.M. Scanlon :: In the first chapter of his book, Reading Obama, Professor James Kloppenberg offers an account of the intellectual climate at Harvard Law School during the years in which President Obama was here as a student, describing both the influential figures at the school and the writers and ideas they were discussing. Unsurprisingly, Professor Frank Michelman appears prominently on the first list. READ MORE
Provocation: The Comparative Turn: Accident, Coincidence, or Fate?
Katharine G. Young :: Why would a long-standing leader in the field of American constitutional law turn his intellectual attention to another constitutional system? And why choose South Africa? For almost two decades, Frank Michelman’s contribution to the field of comparative constitutional law has been much like his contribution to constitutional theory and constitutional law in general: soaring, generous, always in dialogue with others, and yet always uniquely his own. In this Provocation, I examine: what accounts for the comparative turn? READ MORE
June 26, 2012 at 3:59 pm
Posted in: Law Rev (Harvard), Law Rev Forum
Print This Post
Comments Closed
The Harvard Law Review Online Forum: Responding to Orin S. Kerr, An Equilibrium-Adjustment Theory of the Fourth Amendment, 125 Harv. L. Rev. 476 (2011) and Christopher Slobogin, An Original Take on Originalism,125 Harv. L. Rev. F. 14 (2011)
posted by Harvard Law Review
Defending Equilibrium-Adjustment
Orin S. Kerr :: I thank Professor Christopher Slobogin for responding to my recent Article, An Equilibrium-Adjustment Theory of the Fourth Amendment. My Article contended that much of today’s Fourth Amendment law can be understood as the product of equilibrium-adjustment. When changing technology and social practice threaten to considerably expand or restrict government power, courts tighten or loosen Fourth Amendment restrictions to restore the status quo level of government power. That is, courts account for changing technology by adjusting rules in an effort to restore the prior equilibrium of government power. Existing Fourth Amendment doctrine therefore reflects many decades of equilibrium-adjustment over time. READ MORE
June 1, 2012 at 11:12 am
Posted in: Law Rev (Harvard), Law Rev Forum
Print This Post
Comments Closed
The Harvard Law Review Online Forum: Responding to Jody Freeman and Jim Rossi, Agency Coordination in Shared Regulatory Space, 125 Harv. L. Rev. 1131 (2012)
posted by Harvard Law Review
The More the Merrier: Multiple Agencies and the Future of Administrative Law Scholarship
Eric Biber :: Multiple agencies are all the rage in administrative law. As Professors Jody Freeman and Jim Rossi note, the traditional focus in administrative law has been on investigating how individual agencies function, and how interactions with the White House, Congress, and the courts shape (for better or for worse) their decisionmaking. In contrast, the newer scholarship looks at how multiple agencies interact. Some of that scholarship focuses on particular areas of law, calling on policymakers to consider using a combination of multiple agencies, rather than one single agency, to solve particular policy problems. Other scholarship is more cross-cutting, trying to identify larger patterns that run across substantive areas, describing how the existence of multiple agencies and their interactions might shape agency decisionmaking and what we might (or might not) want to do about it. Freeman and Rossi’s piece, though it draws on a particular case study, has a broader ambition and makes an important and useful contribution to this second category. READ MORE
April 24, 2012 at 5:11 pm
Posted in: Law Rev (Harvard), Law Rev Forum
Print This Post
Comments Closed
Harvard Law Review Online Forum
posted by Harvard Law Review
Reaction: Salvaging Perry
Andrew Koppelman :: The Ninth Circuit, in Perry v. Brown, deftly avoided forcing the Supreme Court’s hand on the big claim that the Constitution requires recognition of same-sex marriage — a claim likely to be rejected now, though perhaps not a few years from now. Instead, it held that California’s Proposition 8, which stripped same-sex couples of their right to have their unions called “marriages,” was unconstitutional because it reflected a bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group. READ MORE
Reaction: Splitting the Difference: Reflections on Perry v. Brown
Jane S. Schacter :: The latest chapter in California’s long running debate over marriage equality began when the voters passed Proposition 8 in 2008. Several months earlier, the California Supreme Court had interpreted the state constitution to protect the right of same-sex couples to marry, and Prop 8 amended the constitution to eliminate that right. READ MORE
Reaction: A Marriage is a Marriage is a Marriage: The Limits of Perry v. Brown
Robin West :: The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Perry v. Brown, authored by Judge Reinhardt, has been widely lauded in the last few weeks by marriage equality proponents for its creative minimalism. In keeping with commentators’ expectations, the court found a way to determine that California’s Proposition 8 violated the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause, namely that the provision took away an entitlement that had previously been enjoyed by same-sex couples — the right to the appellation of one’s partnership as a “marriage” — for no rational reason. READ MORE
March 23, 2012 at 5:41 pm
Posted in: Law Rev (Harvard), Law Rev Forum
Print This Post
Comments Closed
posted by Harvard Law Review
Reaction: A Marriage is a Marriage is a Marriage: The Limits of Perry v. Brown
Robin West :: The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Perry v. Brown, authored by Judge Reinhardt, has been widely lauded in the last few weeks by marriage equality proponents for its creative minimalism. In keeping with commentators’ expectations, the court found a way to determine that California’s Proposition 8 violated the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause, namely that the provision took away an entitlement that had previously been enjoyed by same-sex couples — the right to the appellation of one’s partnership as a “marriage” — for no rational reason. The People of California’s categorization and differential treatment of same-sex couples as compared with opposite-sex couples, the court held, failed the test of minimal rationality required for upholding state action. The two types of couples were simply too indistinguishable to carry the weight of the difference between them that the People of California had tried to codify. Thus, the court struck down the state constitutional amendment. READ MORE
March 7, 2012 at 12:30 pm
Posted in: Law Rev (Harvard), Law Rev Forum
Print This Post
Comments Closed
The Harvard Law Review Online Forum: Responding to Rebecca Tushnet, Worth a Thousand Words: The Images of Copyright, 125 Harv. L. Rev. 683 (2012)
posted by Harvard Law Review
More Than a Thousand Words in Response to Rebecca Tushnet
Christina Spiesel :: In this response to Professor Rebecca Tushnet, Professor Christina Spiesel argues that the contrast Tushnet uses to differentiate pictures and words poses problems in view of the challenges posed by the Internet. Online, all expression is representation made of the same material and everything is first a picture or a sound behind a picture, so the different status of words and pictures requires further sorting. Professor Spiesel complicates the conversation Professor Tushnet began by showing that copyright law is now at the center of very large debates about the Internet and our public lives. READ MORE
February 22, 2012 at 2:23 pm
Posted in: Law Rev (Harvard), Law Rev Forum
Print This Post
Comments Closed
The Harvard Law Review Online Forum: Responding to Jamal Greene, The Anticanon, 125 Harv. L. Rev. 379 (2011)
posted by Harvard Law Review
Hollow Hopes and Exaggerated Fears: The Canon/Anticanon in Context
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
January 11, 2012 at 11:03 am
Posted in: Law Rev (Harvard), Law Rev Forum
Print This Post
Comments Closed
The Harvard Law Review Online Forum: Responding to Dan M. Kahan, Neutral Principles, Motivated Cognition, and Some Problems for Constitutional Law, 125 Harv. L. Rev. 1 (2011)
posted by Harvard Law Review
Democracy’s Distrust: Contested Values and the Decline of Expertise
Suzanna Sherry :: In this response to Professor Dan Kahan’s Foreword, Neutral Principles, Motivated Cognition, and Some Problems for Constitutional Law, Professor Suzanna Sherry argues that while Kahan accurately describes the contemporary “neutrality crisis” and the consequent popular mistrust of the Supreme Court, he has mistaken its cause and thus proposes the wrong solution. READ MORE
“I Couldn’t See It Until I Believed It”: Some Notes on Motivated Reasoning in Constitutional Adjudication
Mark Tushnet :: In this response to Neutral Principles, Motivated Cognition, and Some Problems for Constitutional Law, Professor Mark Tushnet raises two potential problems with Professor Dan Kahan’s argument that the Supreme Court can restore public faith in its neutrality by avoiding “motivated reasoning” and instead writing opinions that affirm the values of citizens with strikingly different cultural orientations. READ MORE
November 28, 2011 at 3:59 pm
Posted in: Law Rev (Harvard), Law Rev Forum
Print This Post
No Comments
University of Toronto Law Journal – Volume 61, Number 2 /2011
posted by University of Toronto Law Journal
University of Toronto Law Journal – Volume 61, Number 2 /2011
Special Issue: Understanding Law on its Own Terms: Essays on the Occasion of Ernest Weinrib’s Killam Prize
In 2009, the internationally leading scholar of private law and Canada’s pre-eminent legal theorist, Ernest Weinrib, was awarded the Killam Prize in the social sciences, the country’s highest honor for scholarly career achievement. On the occasion of the prize, Weinrib presented a public lecture on Private Law and Public Right, developing a new set of ideas. In this special issue, Weinrib’s lecture is published together with pieces by former students of his who have made important contributions to private law theory.
Editor’s Note
Arthur Ripstein
Ernie’s Three Worlds
Bruce Chapman
Private Law And Public Right
Ernest J Weinrib
Formalism In Music And Law
Allan Beever
The Idea Of Consideration
Peter Benson
Private Law And Kantian Right
Alan Brudner
Legal Positivism As An Idea About Morality
Martin Stone
May 24, 2011 at 9:19 pm
Posted in: Law Rev (Toronto), Law Rev Contents, Law Rev Forum
Print This Post
One Comment
University of Toronto Law Journal – Volume 61, Number 1 /2011
posted by University of Toronto Law Journal
University of Toronto Law Journal – Volume 61, Number 1, 2011
Empire And International Law: The Real Spanish Contribution
Martti Koskenniemi
Distinctions Of Power And The Power Of Distinctions: A Response To Professor Koskenniemi
Arthur Ripstein
FOCUS: THE AIR INDIA REPORT AND THE REGULATION OF CHARITIES AND TERRORISM FINANCING
In June 2010, the Air India Commission released its long-awaited report on the investigation of the 1985 bombing and efforts taken in Canada since that time to prevent similar terrorist attacks. In this focus feature, experts address major issues of terrorism financing and the regulation of charities in light of the Commission’s report and other recent developments.
The Air India Report And The Regulation Of Charities And Terrorism Financing
Kent Roach
Combating Terrorist Financing: Is Canada’s Legal Regime Effective?
Anita I. Anand
Charities And Terrorist Financing
David G. Duff
REVIEW ARTICLES
A Hegelian Criminal Law
Stephen P. Garvey
Ending Impunity: Critical Reflections On The Prosecution Of Heads Of State
Renu Mandhane
Book Review
The Transformation of the Supreme Court of Canada: An Empirical Examination( DONALD R SONGER )
Benjamin Alarie
May 12, 2011 at 8:29 am
Posted in: Law Rev (Toronto), Law Rev Contents, Law Rev Forum
Print This Post
No Comments
Iowa Law Review, Volume 96, Issue 2 (January 2011)
posted by Iowa Law Review
Articles
The Coercion of Trafficked Workers
Kathleen Kim
IP Misuse as Foreclosure
Christina Bohannan
Consent to Retaliation: A Civil Recourse Theory of Contractual Liability
Nathan B. Oman
Automation and the Fourth Amendment
Matthew Tokson
Essay
No Middle Ground? Reflections on the Citizens United Decision
Randall P. Bezanson
Notes
Princo, Patent Pools, and the Risk of Foreclosure: A Framework for Assessing Misuse
Phillip W. Goter
Holden Caulfield Grows Up: Salinger v. Colting, the Promotion-of-Progress Requirement, and Market Failure in a Derivative-Works Regime
John M. Newman
Is Senator Grassley Our Savior?: The Crusade Against “Charitable” Hospitals Attacking Patients for Unpaid Bills
Amanda W. Thai
January 20, 2011 at 12:39 pm
Posted in: Law Rev (Iowa), Law Rev Contents, Law Rev Forum, Law School, Law School (Law Reviews), Law School (Scholarship), Law Talk, Uncategorized
Print This Post
No Comments
Iowa Law Review, Volume 96, Issue 1 (November 2010)
posted by Iowa Law Review
Articles
Real Copyright Reform
Jessica Litman
Policy Reversal on Reverse Payments: Why Courts Should Not Follow the New DOJ Position on Reverse-Payment Settlements of Pharmaceutical Patent Litigation
Henry N. Butler & Jeffrey Paul Jarosch
The Uneasy Case for the Inside Director
Lisa M. Fairfax
Judging Myopia in Hindsight: Bivens Actions, National Security Decisions, and the Rule of Law
Peter Margulies
Tort Liability and the Original Meaning of the Freedom of Speech, Press, and Petition
Eugene Volokh
Essay
Automobile Bankruptcies, Retiree Benefits, and the Futility of Springing Priorities in Chapter 11 Reorganizations
Daniel Keating
Notes
Out-of-State Civil Unions in Iowa After Varnum v. Brien: Why the State of Iowa Should Recognize Civil Unions as Marriages
Drew A. Cumings-Peterson
Al-Kidd v. Ashcroft: Clearly Established Confusion
James E. Mosimann
Sexting: How the State Can Prevent a Moment of Indiscretion from Leading to a Lifetime of Unintended Consequences for Minors and Young Adults
Elizabeth M. Ryan
The FLSA Antiretaliation Provision: Defining the Outer Contours of What Constitutes an Employee Complaint
Erin M. Snider
November 12, 2010 at 5:47 pm
Posted in: Law Rev (Iowa), Law Rev Contents, Law Rev Forum, Law School, Uncategorized
Print This Post
No Comments
University of Toronto Law Journal – Volume 60, Number 4 /2010
posted by University of Toronto Law Journal
University of Toronto Law Journal – Volume 60, Number 4, Fall 2010
ARTICLES
Investing In Democracy? Political Process And International Investment Law
David Schneiderman
Is Systemic Risk Relevant To Securities Regulation?
Anita I. Anand
FOCUS: THE RESURGENCE OF PHILOSOPHICAL LEGAL ETHICS
If Philosophical Legal Ethics Is The Answer, What Is The Question?
Alice Woolley
Three Issues In Legal Ethics
Daniel Markovits
Methodology And Perspective In The Theory Of Lawyers’ Ethics: A Response To Professors Woolley And Markovits
W. Bradley Wendel
Philosophical Legal Ethics And Personal Integrity
Tim Dare
REVIEW ARTICLE
Language And Judgment’s Reach: Reflecting On Limits On Rights
Robert Leckey
BOOK REVIEW
Sexual Citizens: The Legal and Cultural Regulation of Sex and Belonging by Brenda Cossman, reviewed by Rebecca Johnson
Current issue will also be available through Westlaw, LexisNexis/Quicklaw, Scholars Portal and Project Muse.
November 11, 2010 at 11:25 am
Posted in: Law Rev (Toronto), Law Rev Contents, Law Rev Forum
Print This Post
2 Comments
Iowa Law Review, Volume 95, Issue 5 (July 2010)
posted by Iowa Law Review
Articles
Burying the “Continuing Body” Theory of the Senate
Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl
Protecting Patients with Passports: Medical Tourism and the Patient-Protective Argument
I. Glenn Cohen
Do Partisan Elections of Judges Produce Unequal Justice When Courts Review Employment Arbitrations?
Michael H. LeRoy
Evidence Law as a System of Incentives
John Leubsdorf
Notes
A New Wave of Paternalistic Tobacco Regulation
Robert J. Baehr
Fair Use Through the Lenz of § 512(c) of the DMCA: A Preemptive Defense to a Premature Remedy?
Joseph M. Miller
Judicial Federalism, Equal Protection, and the Legacy of Racing Association of Central Iowa
Brett F. Roberts
September 1, 2010 at 2:34 pm
Posted in: Law Rev (Iowa), Law Rev Contents, Law Rev Forum, Law School
Print This Post
No Comments
