Archive for the ‘Law Rev Forum’ Category

Sidebar Publishes Second in Series of Essays on Immigration Law

posted by Columbia Law Review

Sidebar is pleased to announce the publication of the second in our series of essays on immigration law, “Building Capacity for the Transnational Regulation of Migration” by Professor Cristina Rodríguez, currently visiting at Harvard Law School.

In this piece Professor Rodríguez argues that immigration cannot be addressed solely through unilateral regulation; rather, because migration is inherently international its management requires engagement with other governments.  She identifies some of the existing mechanisms of transnationalism in the U.S.-Mexico relationship and offers initial suggestions for their development.

  February 10, 2010 at 8:59 am   Posted in: Law Rev (Columbia), Law Rev Forum   Print This Post   No Comments

The Yale Law Journal Online: Richard Lazarus and Sanford Levinson on the Supreme Court’s Certiorari Process

posted by Yale Law Journal

Concluding its series on proposed reforms to the certiorari process, The Yale Law Journal Online is pleased to present pieces by Richard Lazarus of the Georgetown Law Center and Sanford Levinson of the University of Texas Law School.  Lazarus and Levinson approach the issue of the Supreme Court’s docket composition through a variety of perspectives, and shed light on the ongoing debate over whether the declining number of cases before the Court presents a problem for the American judicial system.

The Yale Law Journal Online and the Yale Law School Supreme Court Advocacy Clinic will be a hosting a second conference on the subject on March 23, 2010 at Yale Law School in New Haven, Connecticut.  Further details will be provided shortly.

Preferred Citations:

Richard J. Lazarus, Docket Capture at the High Court, 119 Yale L.J. Online 89 (2009), available at http://yalelawjournal.org/2010/01/24/lazarus.html.

Sanford Levinson, Assessing the Supreme Court’s Current Caseload: A Question of Law or Politics?, 119 Yale L.J. Online 99 (2010), available at http://yalelawjournal.org/2010/02/01/levinson.html.

  February 2, 2010 at 11:29 am   Posted in: Law Rev (Yale), Law Rev Forum, Supreme Court   Print This Post   No Comments

Iowa Law Review, Volume 95, Issue 1 (November 2009)

posted by Iowa Law Review

Articles

Juvenile Justice: The Fourth Option
Christopher Slobogin & Mark R. Fondacaro

Testing Modern Trademark Law’s Theory of Harm
Mark P. McKenna

Ignorance Is Effectively Bliss: Collateral Consequences, Silence, and Misinformation in the Guilty-Plea Process
Jenny Roberts

Formalism and Pragmatism in Ruins (Mapping the Logics of Collapse)
Pierre Schlag

Notes

Making Taxes More Certain: Iowa State Legislators’ Guide to Combined Reporting
Lindsay C. McAfee

Rescuecom Corp. v. Google Inc.: A Conscious Analytical Shift
Jessica A.E. McKinney

An Iowa Immigration Raid Leads to Unprecedented Criminal Consequences: Why ICE Should Rethink the Postville Model
Cassie L. Peterson

Clearing the Air: Analyzing the Constitutionality of the Iowa Smokefree Air Act’s Gaming-Floor Exemption
Kevin D. Sherlock

  January 10, 2010 at 5:28 pm   Posted in: Law Rev (Iowa), Law Rev Contents, Law Rev Forum, Law School (Law Reviews)   Print This Post   Comments Closed

The Yale Law Journal Online: Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson’s “If It Ain’t Broke . . .”

posted by Yale Law Journal

The Yale Law Journal Online is pleased to present its last publication of 2009.  The Hon. J. Harvie Wilkinson III addresses the recent calls to reform the Supreme Court’s certiorari process in this Essay, which cautions against reforms that may cause significant collateral damage to the American judicial system.  Judge Wilkinson addresses the recent contraction of the Supreme Court’s docket, challenging the notion that a smaller docket is cause for alarm.  He also challenges a number of the proposals on the table, invoking a historical perspective to argue against tampering with the fundamental structure and role of the Court.  These arguments continue Judge Wilkinson’s previous remarks on the subject at the Yale Law School-sponsored conference, “Important Questions of Federal Law.”

Preferred Citation: J. Harvie Wilkinson III, If It Ain’t Broke . . ., 119 YALE L.J. ONLINE 67 (2009), available at http://yalelawjournal.org/2009/12/16/wilkinson.html.

  December 25, 2009 at 12:54 am   Posted in: Law Rev (Yale), Law Rev Forum, Supreme Court   Print This Post   No Comments

The Yale Law Journal Online: Is It Important To Be Important?: Evaluating the Supreme Court’s Case-Selection Process

posted by Yale Law Journal

On September 19, 2009, Frederick Schauer discussed the state of the Supreme Court’s certiorari process at a conference sponsored by The Yale Law Journal Online and the Yale Law School Supreme Court Advocacy Clinic.  Professor Schauer’s Essay on the topic, evaluating the dwindling caseload of the Court, the potential for an informational disadvantage on the part of the Justices themselves, and means by which a solution may be found, is now available on YLJ Online.

  December 9, 2009 at 8:27 am   Posted in: Law Rev (Yale), Law Rev Forum, Supreme Court, Uncategorized   Print This Post   No Comments

Sidebar Publishes Companion to “The Correspondence of Contract and Promise”

posted by Columbia Law Review

Columbia Law Review’s Sidebar is pleased to announce the publication of a companion piece to  his article, “The Correspondence of Contract and Promise” by Professor Kraus of the University of Virginia School of Law.

In his article Professor Kraus claims that contract scholars have mistakenly presumed that they can assess the correspondence between contract and promise without first providing a theory of self-imposed moral responsibility that explains and justifies the promise principle.  To illustrate the dependence of correspondence accounts of contract law on a theory of self-imposed moral responsibility, Professor Kraus demonstrate how a “personal sovereignty” account of individual autonomy—one of the most familiar and intuitive theories of self-imposed moral responsibility—explains how and why, contrary to existing correspondence theories, promissory responsibility corresponds to the rights and duties recognized by contract.

In the companion piece, “Personal Sovereignty and Normative Power Skepticism,” Professor Kraus explains that according to the personal sovereignty account of promising, individuals have the normative power to undertake self-imposed moral responsibilities (i.e., moral obligations) because such a power enhances personal sovereignty.  Professor Kraus then describes the skeptical argument that has been leveled against theories of promissory obligation that posit a normative power to make a promise and argues that that argument has no force against the personal sovereignty account he offers.

  December 3, 2009 at 12:10 pm   Posted in: Law Rev (Columbia), Law Rev Forum   Print This Post   No Comments

PENNumbra publishes responses to The River Runs Dry: When Title VI Trumps State Anti–Affirmative Action Laws

posted by University of Pennsylvania Law Review

PENNumbra‘s featured works are now available at www.pennumbra.com.

This issue contains responses to The River Runs Dry:  When Title VI Trumps State Anti–Affirmative Action Laws by Kimberly West-Faulcon.

In The River Runs Dry:  When Title VI Trumps State Anti–Affirmative Action Laws, Professor Kimberly West-Faulcon considers whether universities that completely abolish affirmative action to comply with state anti–affirmative action initiatives may actually be breaking the law with respect to Title VI. Using statistical tests for identifying Title VI disparate impact, she analyzes selective California and Washington public university admissions cycles after the enactment of anti–affirmative action laws and finds racial disparities in admissions to affirmative action–less universities of sufficient magnitude that, if unjustified, could establish that an institution has a compelling interest in considering race to comply with federal antidiscrimination law. Based on this analysis, she concludes that state anti–affirmative action laws may permit the consideration of race if undertaken to remedy federal “racial effect discrimination.”

In Do We Care Enough About Racial Inequality? Reflections on The River Runs Dry, Professor Guy-Uriel Charles asserts that while West-Faulcon has provided an apt legal tool to address racial inequality in education, the problem is not a lack of legal tools but the failure of the legal system to recognize the dignity of people of color in constitutional analysis. Charles argues that legal academics need to make not just legal arguments but a renewed case why we ought to care about racial inequality.

In Doctrinal Dilemma, Professor Girardeau Spann describes West-Faulcon’s argument as both analytically sound and enticingly clever but demonstrates that doctrinal arguments can likewise be developed by socially powerful opponents that are cogent enough to evade West-Faulcon’s conclusions. Consequently, Spann argues that legal scholars seeking to promote racial justice confront a serious dilemma: continue to make doctrinal arguments and reinforce the legitimacy of a social system that uses law as a tool for the continued oppression of racial minorities; or stop participating and risk losing those sporadic concession that even an oppressive social system must occasionally make to prevent bottled-up frustrations from ripening into serious threats of destabilizing change.

As always, please visit PENNumbra to read previous Responses and Debates, or to check out pdfs of the Penn Law Review‘s print edition articles.

  December 2, 2009 at 11:05 am   Posted in: Law Rev (Penn), Law Rev Forum   Print This Post   One Comment

Herrmann, Beck, and Burbank Debate Twombly and Iqbal

posted by University of Pennsylvania Law Review

In Plausible Denial:  Should Congress Overrule Twombly and Iqbal?, Mark Herrmann and James Beck debate with Professor Stephen Burbank whether the plausibility standard set out in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal is a proper “recalibration” of the pleading rules or an illegitimate “innovation” and whether Congress would be wise to overrule it. In their Opening Statement, Herrmann and Beck argue that the drafters of the Federal Rules intentionally left Rule 8 ambiguous. The creation of new federal rights, liberalization of class action rules, and massive escalation of discovery costs warranted the retirement of the “no set of facts” language from the Court’s earlier interpretation of Rule 8. In their view, the new course set by the Supreme Court is the proper one.

Check back weekly as the debate unfolds. As always, please visit PENNumbra to read previous Responses and Debates, or to check out pdfs of the Penn Law Review‘s print edition articles.

  December 2, 2009 at 11:05 am   Posted in: Law Rev (Penn), Law Rev Forum   Print This Post   No Comments

Minnesota Law Review Headnotes 94:1 (December 2009)

posted by Minnesota Law Review

The Minnesota Law Review is proud to announce the fall edition of our new online companion journal, Minnesota Law Review Headnotes. In addition to serving as the online archive of the Law Review‘s print articles, available in PDF format, Headnotes also features original, online-only Response articles in which prominent academics respond to the articles the Law Review publishes. Comment fields are available at the end of each Response, and readers are encouraged to provide feedback.

In this issue of Headnotes Responses:

Peter Lee (UC Davis School of Law) responds to Pamela Samuelson‘s article, Are Patents on Interfaces Impeding Interoperability?. In Innovating Between and Within Technological Paradigms: A Response to Samuelson, Professor Lee builds on Professor Samuelson’s article to emphasize that the social costs and benefits of interface patents are highly context-specific. Invoking the concept of “technological paradigms,” Professor Lee argues that strong interface patents can promote significant technological advances in contested industries, but that ex post policy interventions may be necessary to curtail patents on industry standards.

Donald P. Judges (University of Arkansas) and Stephen J. Cribari (University of Minnesota Law School) respond to Ted Sampsell-Jones‘s article, Making Defendants Speak. In Speaking of Silence: A Response to Making Defendants Speak, Professors Judges and Cribari concentrate on explaining why they do not share Professor Sampsell-Jones’s underlying antipathy to the Fifth Amendment right to silence at trial. That antipathy, also frequently expressed by other commentators, is reflected in the article’s proposed rejection of Griffin v. California’s prohibition regarding adverse inferences from the defendant’s assertion of that right. The modern right to silence at trial, while perhaps more robust than framing-era practice, has emerged in a criminal justice system the scope and intrusiveness of which itself greatly exceeds framing-era experience. Griffin’s no-adverse-inference rule, and the right to silence at trial it helps to effectuate, are components of an interrelated cluster of protections, the centerpiece of which is the right to counsel, that reinforce the “test the prosecution” and “anti-inquisitorial” nature of today’s system. While neither theoretically tidy nor practically perfect, those protections at least offer a modicum of dignity which the authors believe many persons would want to have when faced with a powerful adversary in a dehumanizing process. Finally, the authors briefly note why they believe the purported benefits from the reforms proposed in Making Defendants Speak are illusory.

  December 1, 2009 at 8:25 am   Posted in: Law Rev (Minnesota), Law Rev Forum   Print This Post   No Comments

Sidebar Publishes Responses to October Issue of the Columbia Law Review

posted by Columbia Law Review

Columbia Law Review’s Sidebar is pleased to announce the publication of three responses in conjunction with the October issue of the Columbia Law Review.

The first piece is a response to Noah D. Zatz’s article, Managing the Macaw: Third-Party Harassers, Accommodation, and the Disaggregation of Discriminatory Intent by Professor Tristin K. Green of Seton Hall Law School.  In his Article Professor Zatz exploits the anomaly in Title VII doctrine of employer liability for third-party harassment to develop a new theory of employment discrimination law which relies on the ideas of membership causation and employer responsibility.  In the Response, Professor Green criticizes Professor Zatz’s discussion of the applicability of his account to employer liability for the bias of a subordinate.  She argues that by failing to distinguish between direct and vicarious liability Professor Zatz creates a risk that courts will limit employer liability based on considerations of “notice” and “feasibility” even where traditionally strict liability has been imposed.

The second is a response to Darrell A.H. Miller’s article Guns as Smut: Defending the Home-Bound Second Amendment by Professor Eugene Volokh of the UCLA School of Law.  In his Article, Professor Miller suggests treating the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self-defense the same as the right to own and view adult obscenity under the First Amendment—a robust right in the home, subject to near-plenary restriction by elected government everywhere else.  In the Response Professor Volokh challenges the analogy between guns and obscenity.  He notes that obscenity is one of the least protected and marginal categories of speech, while the personal right to bear arms is at the core of the second amendment.

Finally, we have published a reply to Professor Volokh by Professor Miller in which he points out that much of Professor Volokh’s Response is a challenge to the accuracy of the analogy, rather than to arguments that underpin the analogy and independently justify the home-bound Second Amendment.

  October 28, 2009 at 6:13 am   Posted in: Law Rev (Columbia), Law Rev Forum   Print This Post   One Comment

The Yale Law Journal Online: Citizens Not United: The Lack of Stockholder Voluntariness in Corporate Political Speech

posted by Yale Law Journal

 

The Yale Law Journal Online is pleased to announce the publication of Citizens Not United: The Lack of Stockholder Voluntariness in Corporate Political Speech by Elizabeth Pollman, a Stanford Law Fellow and former practitioner at Latham & Watkins LLP.  Pollman’s piece covers the potential for sweeping changes to corporate political speech law in light of the Supreme Court proceedings in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

  October 26, 2009 at 1:30 pm   Posted in: Corporate Law, Law Rev (Yale), Law Rev Forum, Media Law, Politics, Supreme Court   Print This Post   No Comments

The Yale Law Journal Online

posted by Yale Law Journal

The Yale Law Journal is pleased to present its new online platform, The Yale Law Journal Online (http://www.yalelawjournal.org/). YLJ Online will continue the Journal‘s mission of providing accessible and substantive scholarship through the online medium. It offers original essays on timely and novel legal developments and responses to articles in the print Journal, as well as adapted lectures and recordings/podcasts of featured pieces.

When the Journal launched The Pocket Part in 2005, it was the first law review to establish an original online companion; as the Journal nears its 120th anniversary, YLJ Online represents the next step in that endeavor. The launch of YLJ Online‘s original content section features an essay by Hiro N. Aragaki, addressing the Hall Street v. Mattel litigation and manifest disregard, as well as responses by selected scholars to Michael Stokes Paulsen’s The Constitutional Power To Interpret International Law (118 Yale L.J. 1762 (2009)).

In the coming weeks, YLJ Online will present a variety of essays and features on marriage, property, and corporate law, as well as a selection of pieces from the Hon. J. Harvie Wilkinson III and other participants in its inaugural Washington, D.C. conference on the Supreme Court’s certiorari process. Among the many features that YLJ Online offers are Essays (4,000-6,000 words), Commentaries (under 2,000 words), Responses, adapted lectures and solicited pieces. More information can be found on the Submissions page (http://www.yalelawjournal.org/submissions.html). All YLJ Online publications are available and fully searchable through LexisNexis and Westlaw. The Journal also provides all YLJ Online pieces in PDF/reprint format, and podcasts on its website/iTunes for selected pieces. For questions regarding YLJ Online, please contact the Journal‘s Managing Online Editor, Jeff K. Lee, here.

Now available on YLJ Online:

Essay

Hiro N. Aragaki, The Mess of Manifest Disregard, 119 Yale L.J. Online 1 (2009). [HTML] [PDF]

Responses

Julian Ku, The Prospects for the Peaceful Co-Existence of Constitutional and International Law, 119 Yale L.J. Online 15 (2009). [HTML] [PDF]

Peter J. Spiro, Wishing International Law Away, 119 Yale L.J. Online 23 (2009). [HTML] [PDF]

Margaret E. McGuinness, Old W(h)ine, Old Bottles: A Response to Professor Paulsen, 119 Yale L.J. Online 31 (2009). [HTML] [PDF]

Robert Ahdieh, The Fog of Certainty, 119 Yale L.J. Online 41 (2009). [HTML] [PDF]

  October 2, 2009 at 7:28 am   Posted in: Law Rev (Yale), Law Rev Contents, Law Rev Forum, Law School (Law Reviews)   Print This Post   No Comments

Iowa Law Review, Volume 94, Issue 5 (July 2009)

posted by Iowa Law Review

CRITICAL RACE THEORY SPEAKER SERIES
CRT 20: HONORING OUR PAST, CHARTING OUR FUTURE

Introduction

  September 10, 2009 at 9:35 am   Posted in: Law Rev (Iowa), Law Rev Contents, Law Rev Forum, Law School (Law Reviews)   Print This Post   No Comments

Conference: Important Questions of Federal Law—Assessing the Supreme Court’s Case Selection Process

posted by Yale Law Journal

The Yale Law School Supreme Court Advocacy Clinic and The Yale Law Journal Online, the forthcoming online platform of The Yale Law Journal, will host a half-day conference, “Important Questions of Federal Law”: Assessing the Supreme Court’s Case Selection Process, on September 18, 2009, at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. The conference will consider the nature and causes of changes in the Supreme Court’s docket in recent years, as well as suggestions for reform of the certiorari process. The conference is made possible by the generous support of the Oscar M. Ruebhausen Fund. Practicing attorneys, judges, academics, and students are invited to attend. There is no charge for the conference, but space is limited, so all attendees must pre-register here. Breakfast and refreshments will be provided. If you are unable to attend, podcasts of conference sessions and downloadable papers from the panelists will be made available by Yale Law School’s main website. Select papers will also be published by The Yale Law Journal Online. Information on the conference can also be downloaded by clicking here.  For more information on The Yale Law Journal Online and the conference, please contact YLJ Online Editor Kathleen Claussen here.

  August 31, 2009 at 7:14 pm   Posted in: Conferences, Constitutional Law, Law Rev (Yale), Law Rev Forum, Supreme Court   Print This Post   No Comments

Iowa Law Review, Volume 94, Issue 4 (May 2009)

posted by Iowa Law Review

Articles

Saving Facebook
James Grimmelmann

Attempt by Omission
Michael T. Cahill

Strange Bedfellows: Criminal Law, Family Law, and the Legal Construction of Intimate Life
Melissa Murray

Insider Trading and the Gradual Demise of Fiduciary Principles
Donna M. Nagy

Notes

Corporate Liability for Violations of Labor Rights Under the Alien Tort Claims Act
Wesley V. Carrington

The Right and Wrong Ways to Sell A Public Forum
John C. Crees

Searching for a Solution: A Proposed Change to the Code of Iowa Chapter 808A
Morgan N. Engling

Nonprofits: Are You at Risk of Losing Your Tax-Exempt Status?
Gina M. Lavarda

  August 21, 2009 at 12:46 pm   Posted in: Law Rev (Iowa), Law Rev Contents, Law Rev Forum, Law School (Law Reviews), Uncategorized   Print This Post   No Comments

Sidebar Publishes Essay on Remedial Rationing

posted by Columbia Law Review

Columbia Law Review‘s Sidebar is pleased to announce the publication of Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, Rodriguez v. City of Houston, and Remedial Rationing by Professor Jennifer Laurin of the University of Texas School of Law.

In her Essay, Professor Laurin identifies a trend in recent Supreme Court jurisprudence to restrict the enforcement of criminal procedure rights to either criminal defense or civil rights litigation, something she calls remedial rationing. Using Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts—a criminal appeal decided by the Supreme Court last term—and Rodriguez v. City of Houston—a civil rights suit which the author participated in litigating—as examples, Professor Laurin discusses the prospects for each type of remedy to regulate law enforcement conduct.  She concludes that neither regime can adequately protect criminal defendants’ rights on its own, and that the two regimes work together in important ways.

  August 18, 2009 at 6:04 pm   Posted in: Law Rev (Columbia), Law Rev Forum   Print This Post   No Comments

Sidebar Publishes Companion Piece to Federalization Snowballs

posted by Columbia Law Review

Columbia Law Review‘s Sidebar is pleased to announce the publication of a companion piece to Federalization Snowballs:  The Need for National Action in Medical Malpractice Reform by Professor Abigail Moncrieff of Boston University.

In her Essay, Professor Moncrieff discussed the way in which federal healthcare programs have effected states incentives by allowing states to externalize some of the costs of their malpractice policies, resulting in a need for federal regulation in that area.  She called this a “federalization snowball”—federal intervention through spending programs creates a need for further federal regulation in areas that are traditionally state functions.

In her companion piece, A Closer Look at the Federalization Snowball, Professor Moncrieff explores the scope of the problem of federalization snowballs and its historical and theoretical underpinnings in a debate over the interpretation of the Spending Clause.

  July 13, 2009 at 3:06 am   Posted in: Law Rev (Columbia), Law Rev Forum   Print This Post   No Comments

Sidebar Publishes Response to Heinous, Atrocious and Cruel: Apprendi, Indeterminate Sentencing, and the Meaning of Punishment

posted by Columbia Law Review

Columbia Law Review‘s Sidebar is pleased to announce the publication of a response to W. David Ball’s article Heinous, Atrocious, and Cruel: Apprendi, Indeterminate Sentencing, and the Meaning of Punishment by Professor Berman of Ohio State University’s Moritz College of Law.

In his article Ball explores the ramifications of Apprendi for indeterminate sentencing systems where parole boards may deny parole based on their findings of fact about the original crime, even when these findings contradict the jury’s.  Ball argues that while parole boards may be competent to make factual determinations about a prisoner’s rehabilitation, juries, as the moral representatives of the community, must find facts related to retribution.

In his response, Professor Berman challenges the idea that modern juries can act as the conscience of the community.  He points out that the vast majority of criminal cases never reach a jury and that restrictions on juries prevent them from being able to effectively express moral condemnation through their findings.  Professor Berman argues instead that in order  to develop sound procedural rules for sentencing we must pay greater attention to rights other than the jury right.

  July 2, 2009 at 9:39 am   Posted in: Law Rev (Columbia), Law Rev Forum   Print This Post   No Comments

Sidebar Publishes Response to Revealing Choices: Using Taxpayer Choice to Target Tax Enforcement

posted by Columbia Law Review

Columbia Law Review‘s Sidebar is pleased to announce the publication of a response to Revealing Choices: Using Taxpayer Choice to Target Tax Enforcement by Alex Raskolnikov.

In his article, Professor Raskolnikov argues that the current tax enforcement regime could better take account of differing taxpayer motivations if it were replaced with two regimes: a “deterrence regime,” similar to the current regime but with higher penalties, and a “compliance regime,” which would feature lower penalties but would include procedural mechanisms, such as a pro-government presumption in litigation and a requirement to submit to binding arbitration, which would tend to resolve disputes in the government’s favor. Raskolnikov argues that requiring a choice between these two regimes would serve to separate those taxpayers who seek to game the system from those who do not, so that enforcement mechanisms could be targeted appropriately, leading ultimately to gains in compliance and efficiency.

  June 26, 2009 at 11:45 am   Posted in: Law Rev (Columbia), Law Rev Forum   Print This Post   No Comments

Sidebar publishes response to Judging the Voting Rights Act

posted by Columbia Law Review

Columbia Law Review’s Sidebar is pleased to announce the publication of a response to Judging the Voting Rights Act by Adam B. Cox and Thomas J. Miles.

Professors Cox and Miles’ study found that judicial ideology and race are closely related to findings of liability in voting rights cases. In their response Professors Staudt and VanderWeele argue that, because Cox and Miles failed to investigate the possibility of dependencies between the variables they were studying, their results may be biased. Staudt and VanderWeele develop an alternative approach for exploring the effects of judicial attributes on voting using causal directed acyclic graphs. This methodology can help empirical researchers investigate the relationships between variables in order to posit statistical models with appropriate controls and to identify true cause and effect relationships when they exist. While this methodology has become popular in a number of disciplines—including statistics, biostatistics, epidemiology, and computer science—and is widely believed to be a valuable tool for empirical research, it has yet to appear in the empirical law literature. Staudt and VanderWeele offer a brief introduction of the method in their response in order to initiate discussion as to its worth in empirical legal studies.

  June 3, 2009 at 8:27 am   Posted in: Law Rev (Columbia), Law Rev Contents, Law Rev Forum, Law School (Law Reviews)   Print This Post   No Comments

• « Older Entries
• Newer Entries »