Category: Law Rev (GW)

0

The George Washington Law Review, Issue 77:1 (November 2008)

GWLRbannerTOC.gif

The George Washington Law Review, Issue 77:1 (November 2008)

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

Articles:

Stuart Minor Benjamin and Arti K. Rai, Fixing Innovation Policy: A Structural Perspective , 77 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1 (2008) [PDF]

Saikrishna Bangalore Prakash, Exhuming the Seemingly Moribund Declaration of War, 77 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 89 (2008) [PDF]

Notes:

Christopher Bruno, A Right to Decide Not to Be a Legal Father: Gonzales v. Carhart and the Acceptance of Emotional Harm as a Constitutionally Protected Interest, 77 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 141 (2008) [PDF]

Shaina N. Elias, From Bereavement to Banishment: The Deportation of Surviving Alien Spouses Under the “Widow Penalty” , 77 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 172 (2008) [PDF]

Stephen Satterfield, Still Crying Out for Clarification: The Scope of Liability Under the Alien Tort Statute After Sosa, 77 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 216 (2008) [PDF]

0

The George Washington Law Review, Issue 76:6 (June 2008)

GWLRbannerTOC.gif

The George Washington Law Review, Issue 76:6 (June 2008)

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

Articles:

Radhika Rao, Equal Liberty: Assisted Reproductive Technology and Reproductive Equality, 76 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1457 (2008) [PDF]

John A. Robertson, Assisting Reproduction, Choosing Genes, and the Scope of Reproductive Freedom , 76 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1490 (2008) [PDF]

Sonia M. Suter, The “Repugnance” Lens of Gonzales v. Carhart and Other Theories of Reproductive Rights: Evaluating Advanced Reproductive Technologies, 76 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1514 (2008) [PDF]

Rebecca Dresser, From Double Standard to Double Bind: Informed Choice in Abortion Law, 76 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1599 (2008) [PDF]

Marsha Garrison, Regulating Reproduction, 76 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1623 (2008) [PDF]

Michele Goodwin, Prosecuting the Womb, 76 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1657 (2008) [PDF]

June Carbone, If I Say “Yes” to Regulation Today, Will You Still Respect me in The Morning?, 76 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1747 (2008) [PDF]

John Gastil, Justin Reedy, Donald Braman, & Dan M. Kahan, Deliberation Across the Cultural Divide: Assessing the Potential for Reconciling Conflicting Cultural Orientations to Reproductive Technology, 76 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1772 (2008) [PDF]

0

The George Washington Law Review, Issue 76:2 (February 2008)

GWLRbannerTOC.gif

The George Washington Law Review, Issue 76:2 (February 2008)

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

Lecture:

Roger H. Trangsrud, James F. Humphreys Complex Litigation Lecture:

The Adversary System and Modern Class Action Practice, 76 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 181 (2008) [PDF]

Articles:

Gia B. Lee, The President’s Secrets, 76 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 197 (2008) [PDF]

Jeffrey M. Hirsch, The Silicon Bullet: Will the Internet Kill the NLRA?, 76 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 262 (2008) [PDF]

Jonathan Turley, Too Clever By Half: The Unconstitutionality of Partial Representation of the District of Columbia in Congress, 76 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 305 (2008) [PDF]

Notes:

Russell M. Gold, Is This Your Bedroom?: Reconsidering Third-Party Consent Searches Under Modern Living Arrangements, 76 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 375 (2008) [PDF]

Jacob Rogers, A Passive Approach to Regulation of Virtual Worlds, 76 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 405 (2008) [PDF]

R. Andrew Schwentker, Experimenting With the Experimental-Use Exception: Proposals for a Tax Alternative, 76 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 426 (2008) [PDF]

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.

4

Announcing the Law Review Forum Project

law-review-forum1.jpg

I am very pleased to announce a new project here at Concurring Opinions – the Law Review Forum Project. We will be hosting online forums for several law reviews. Increasingly, law reviews are creating online forums as companions to their regular law review issues. These forums contain very short response pieces, essays, debates, and other works that attempt to bridge the gap between regular legal scholarship and the blogosphere.

Journals seeking to create their own online forum face two daunting challenges. First, they must create and actively maintain a web presence. Second, they must find ways to attract readers, which is difficult in an age where so many blogs and other websites exist. A wide readership for a website depends upon having daily content. Law review forums produce content sporadically throughout the year at intervals that are not regular enough to attract a significant readership.

Therefore, we have invited a number of law reviews to participate in a partnership with our blog. Throughout the year, each law review will periodically post forum essays here at Concurring Opinions. We are not requiring an exclusive license, so participating law reviews can also cross-post at their own websites.

We see this as a mutually-beneficial arrangement. We can bring great content to our blog, and law reviews can reach our significant audience without the pressures of having to build and maintain an online readership or of having to produce content with regularity.

Law reviews currently with and without existing forums will be participating. Thus far, the following law reviews have agreed to participate:

* Harvard Law Review

* Virginia Law Review

* Michigan Law Review

* University of Pennsylvania Law Review

* Northwestern Law Review

* UCLA Law Review

* George Washington Law Review

In the near future, we hope to be expanding the list of participating law reviews.