Southern California Law Review, 82:2 (January 2009)

In Memoriam

Rich Chacon, Erwin Chemerinsky, James B. Curtis, Susan Estrich, Michael J. Graetz, Louise LaMothe & Michael Sims, A Tribute to Professor Charles H. Whitebread, 82 S. Cal. L. Rev. 173 (2009)

Articles

Richard H. McAdams, Beyond the Prisoners’ Dilemma: Coordination, Game Theory, and Law, 82 S. Cal. L. Rev. 209 (2009)

Gerald L. Neuman, The Extraterritorial Constitution After Boumediene v. Bush, 82 S. Cal. L. Rev. 259 (2009)

Notes

Andrew C. Elken, Rethinking the Material Adverse Change Clause in Merger and Acquisition Agreements: Should the United States Consider the British Model?, 82 S. Cal. L. Rev. 291 (2009)

Michael Reynolds, Depictions of the Pig Roast: Restricting Violent Speech Without Burning the House, 82 S. Cal. L. Rev. 341 (2009)

Southern California Law Review, 82:1 (November 2008)

Articles

Anne L. Alstott, Is the Family at Odds with Equality? The Legal Implications of Equality for Children, 82 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1 (2008)

Scott A. Keller, How Courts Can Protect State Autonomy from Federal Administrative Encroachment, 82 S. Cal. L. Rev. 45 (2008)

Notes

Brian Cook, Clearing a Path for Digital Development: Taking Patents in Eminent Domain Through the Adoption of Mandatory Standards, 82 S. Cal. L. Rev. 97 (2008)

Noelle Formosa, Ganging Up on RICO: Narrowing Gonzales v. Raich to Preserve the Significance of the Jurisdictional Element as a Constitutional Limitation in the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 82 S. Cal. L. Rev. 135 (2008)

“You don’t usually find scientists, economists and lawyers talking together about the same topic,” Hadfield said. “I think people will find that we can [...]]]> I’m in LA for the next few days, at the Law, Economics and Neuroscience Conference: Implications for Innovation, sponsored by The Southern California Innovation Project, Theoretical Research in Neuroeconomic Decision-making (TREND) and The Center for Communication Law & Policy. As the press-release says, the idea is to bring together neuroscience researchers, economists, and ordinary law professors and see if the whole is greater than the sum of their parts.

[Gillian] Hadfield [who is organizing the conference on the law side] hopes the symposium will lead to more collaboration among scholars who may appear to have very different goals and backgrounds.

“You don’t usually find scientists, economists and lawyers talking together about the same topic,” Hadfield said. “I think people will find that we can enrich the research agenda of all these disciplines with this kind of cross pollination.”

I hope to blog the conference, or at least my parts in in, over the next few days. I’ll be commenting on Mat McCubbins’ co-authored paper, The Effect of Institutions on Behavior and Brain Activity: Insights from EEGs and Timed-Response Experiments. In the paper, on Boudreau, Coulson, and McCubbins found that identical cooperative behavior in a trust game seems to arise from distinct neurological mechanisms, depending on whether trust in others arose from incentives or penalties. After the session tomorrow I’ll post some of my comments, which intend to connect this paper to the large law review literature on trust.

Southern California Law Review, 81:3 (March 2008)

Articles

Margaret H. Lemos, The Other Delegate: Judicially Administered Statutes and the Nondelegation Doctrine, 81 S. Cal. L. Rev. 405 (2008)

David Luban, On the Commander in Chief Power, 81 S. Cal. L. Rev. 477 (2008)

Notes

Padraic Foran, Unreasonably Wrong: The Supreme Court’s Supremacy, the AEDPA Standard, and Carey v. Musladin, 81 S. Cal. L. Rev. 571 (2008)

Michael Moulton, Effecting the Impossible: An Argument Against Tax Strategy Patents, 81 S. Cal. L. Rev. 631 (2008)

Southern California Law Review, 81:2 (January 2008)

Articles

Robin J. Effron, Event Jurisdiction and Protective Coordination: Lessons from the September 11th Litigation, 81 S. Cal. L. Rev. 199 (2008)

Mark A. Geistfeld, Punitive Damages, Retribution, and Due Process, 81 S. Cal. L. Rev. 263 (2008)

Notes

Josh Cavinato, Turbulence in the Airline Industry: Rethinking America’s Foreign Ownership Restrictions, 81 S. Cal. L. Rev. 311 (2008)

Joel M. Purles, Balancing the Scales: Expanding the Family Movie Act to Protect Consumers After Clean Flicks of Colorado, LLC v. Soderbergh, 81 S. Cal. L. Rev. 351 (2008)

Southern California Law Review, 81:1 (November 2007)

Articles

Paul H. Robinson & John M. Darley, Intuitions of Justice: Implications for Criminal Law and Justice Policy, 81 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1 (2007)

Barak D. Richman & Christopher R. Murray, Rebuilding Illinois Brick: A Functionalist Approach to the Indirect Purchaser Rule, 81 S. Cal. L. Rev. 69 (2007)

Notes

Kenneth Kronstadt, Looking Behind the Curtain: Applying Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act to Businesses Behind Commercial Websites, 81 S. Cal. L. Rev. 111 (2007)

Gabriel Morgan, No More Playing Favorites: Reconsidering the Conclusive Congressional Presumption that Intercollegiate Athletics are Substantially Related to Educational Purposes, 81 S. Cal. L. Rev. 149 (2007)

The Southern California Law Review is pleased to announce the launch of its new online companion, Postscript. Other top law schools have added online companions, and the Law Review finds these new mediums to be a developing and important component of legal scholarship. Postscript permits us to publish a wider variety of material than we can accommodate in our printed journal. Postscript is intended to enhance legal scholarship by providing a forum where academics, practitioners, and students can respond to articles published in the Law Review and to recent legal developments in a concise and expedited format.

Postscript invites two categories of submissions. First, Postscript publishes responses to articles published in the Law Review. Second, Postscript publishes commentaries on legal developments and significant court decisions. We [...]]]>

The Southern California Law Review is pleased to announce the launch of its new online companion, Postscript. Other top law schools have added online companions, and the Law Review finds these new mediums to be a developing and important component of legal scholarship. Postscript permits us to publish a wider variety of material than we can accommodate in our printed journal. Postscript is intended to enhance legal scholarship by providing a forum where academics, practitioners, and students can respond to articles published in the Law Review and to recent legal developments in a concise and expedited format.

Postscript invites two categories of submissions. First, Postscript publishes responses to articles published in the Law Review. Second, Postscript publishes commentaries on legal developments and significant court decisions. We issue topic prompts for commentaries. In addition, authors are free to submit commentaries on other topics.

Postscript utilizes a more expedited production process than the Law Review. Thus, we encourage responses and commentaries under 3,000 words and lightly footnoted. Academics, judges, practitioners, and students are free to submit pieces of original scholarship to Postscript.

For more information, please visit our website. For comments or suggestions, please e-mail postscript@law.usc.edu. We invite and look forward to your participation in Postscript.

Southern California Law Review, 80:6 (September 2007)

Articles

Paul Berman, Global Legal Pluralism, 80 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1155 (2007)

Stavros Gadinis & Howell E. Jackson, Markets as Regulators: A Survey, 80 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1239 (2007)

Notes

Kyle Alexander Casazza, Inkblots: How the Ninth Amendment and the Privileges or Immunities Clause Protect Unenumerated Constitutional Rights, 80 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1383 (2007)

Richard C. Herrera, Policing State Testing Under No Child Left Behind: Encouraging Students with Disabilities to Blow the Whistle on Unscrupulous Educators, 80 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1433 (2007)

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 [...]]]>

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.