<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Concurring Opinions &#187; Law Rev (Stanford)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/category/law-rev-stanford/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com</link>
	<description>The Law, the Universe, and Everything</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Mar 2010 15:18:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Stanford Law Review, Issue 62:2 (January 2010)</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2010/01/stanford-law-review.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2010/01/stanford-law-review.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Jan 2010 07:28:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Stanford Law Review</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Stanford)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev Contents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.concurringopinions.com/?p=24559</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p></p>
<p>Stanford Law Review, Issue 62:2 (January 2010)</p>

ARTICLES



Deep Secrecy

David E. Pozen

257


Commercializing Patents
Ted Sichelman
341


Irrelevant Confusion

Mark A. Lemley &#38; Mark McKenna
413


The Disintegration of Intellectual Property? A Classical Liberal Response to a Premature Obituary
Richard A. Epstein
455



<p>
NOTE
</p>
<p></p>



An Empirical Analysis of Section 1983 Qualified Immunity Actions and Implications of Pearson v. Callahan

Greg Sobolski &#38; Matt Steinberg
523



<p>
COMMENT
</p>
<p></p>



Fourth Amendment Remedial Equilibration: A Comment on Herring v. United States and Pearson v. Callahan

Greg Sobolski &#38; Matt Steinberg
523



]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/Banner%20Draft%205.jpg" alt="Banner Draft 5.jpg" width="355" height="101" /></p>
<p><a href="http://lawreview.stanford.edu/content/index.htm">Stanford Law Review, Issue 62:2 (January 2010)</a></p>
<div><span style="font-size: small"><br />
<strong>ARTICLES</strong></span></div>
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><a href="http://lawreview.stanford.edu/content/vol62/issue2/Pozen.pdf"><span style="font-size: small">Deep Secrecy</span><br />
</a></td>
<td><em><span style="font-size: small">David E. Pozen</span></em><strong><br />
</strong></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small">257</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span style="font-size: small"><a href="http://lawreview.stanford.edu/content/vol62/issue2/Sichelman.pdf">Commercializing Patents</a></span></td>
<td><em><span style="font-size: small">Ted Sichelman</span></em></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small">341</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span style="font-size: small"><a href="http://lawreview.stanford.edu/content/vol62/issue2/Lemley-McKenna.pdf">Irrelevant Confusion<br />
</a></span></td>
<td><em><span style="font-size: small">Mark A. Lemley &amp; Mark McKenna</span></em></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small">413</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span style="font-size: small"><a href="http://lawreview.stanford.edu/content/vol62/issue2/Epstein.pdf">The Disintegration of Intellectual Property? A Classical Liberal Response to a Premature Obituary</a></span></td>
<td><em><span style="font-size: small">Richard A. Epstein</span></em></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small">455</span></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p><span style="font-size: small"><strong><br />
NOTE<br />
</strong></p>
<p></span></p>
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><span style="font-size: small"><a href="http://lawreview.stanford.edu/content/vol62/issue2/Sobolski-Steinberg.pdf">An Empirical Analysis of Section 1983 Qualified Immunity Actions and Implications of <em>Pearson v. Callahan</em><br />
</a></span></td>
<td><em><span style="font-size: small">Greg Sobolski &amp; Matt Steinberg</span></em></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small">523</span></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p><span style="font-size: small"><strong><br />
COMMENT<br />
</strong></p>
<p></span></p>
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><span style="font-size: small"><a href="http://lawreview.stanford.edu/content/vol62/issue2/Owens.pdf">Fourth Amendment Remedial Equilibration: A Comment on <em>Herring v. United States</em> and <em>Pearson v. Callahan</em><br />
</a></span></td>
<td><em><span style="font-size: small">Greg Sobolski &amp; Matt Steinberg</span></em></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small">523</span></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2010/01/stanford-law-review.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Stanford Law Review, Issue 62:1 (December 2009)</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/12/stanford-law-review-issue-621-december-2009.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/12/stanford-law-review-issue-621-december-2009.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Dec 2009 03:47:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Stanford Law Review</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Stanford)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev Contents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.concurringopinions.com/?p=23269</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p></p>
<p>Stanford Law Review, Issue 62:1 (December 2009)</p>
<p>ARTICLES</p>



Promoting Civil Rights Through Proactive Policing Reform

Rachel A. Harmon

1


The Democracy Canon
Richard L. Hasen
69


Delaware&#8217;s Shrinking Half-Life

Mark J. Roe
125


Breaking the Law to Enforce It: Undercover Police Participation in Crime
Elizabeth E. Joh
155


Nonlethal Self-Defense, (Almost Entirely) Nonlethal Weapons, and the Rights to Keep and Bear Arms and Defend Life

Eugene Volokh
199



<p>
</p>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/Banner%20Draft%205.jpg" alt="Banner Draft 5.jpg" width="355" height="101" /></p>
<p><a href="http://lawreview.stanford.edu/content/index.htm">Stanford Law Review, Issue 62:1 (December 2009)</a></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-size: small">ARTICLES</span></strong></p>
<table style="width: 525px;height: 238px" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><a href="http://lawreview.stanford.edu/content/vol62/issue1/Harmon.pdf"><span style="font-size: small">Promoting Civil Rights Through Proactive Policing Reform<br />
</span></a></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small"><em>Rachel A. Harmon</em></span><strong><br />
</strong></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small">1</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><a href="http://lawreview.stanford.edu/content/vol62/issue1/Hasen.pdf"><span style="font-size: small">The Democracy Canon</span></a></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small"><em>Richard L. Hasen</em></span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small">69</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><a href="http://lawreview.stanford.edu/content/vol62/issue1/Roe.pdf"><span style="font-size: small">Delaware&#8217;s Shrinking Half-Life<br />
</span></a></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small"><em>Mark J. Roe</em></span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small">125</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><a href="http://lawreview.stanford.edu/content/vol62/issue1/Joh.pdf"><span style="font-size: small">Breaking the Law to Enforce It: Undercover Police Participation in Crime</span></a></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small"><em>Elizabeth E. Joh</em></span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small">155</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><a href="http://lawreview.stanford.edu/content/vol62/issue1/Volokh.pdf"><span style="font-size: small">Nonlethal Self-Defense, (Almost Entirely) Nonlethal Weapons, and the Rights to Keep and Bear Arms and Defend Life<br />
</span></a></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small"><em>Eugene Volokh</em></span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: small">199</span></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p><strong><br />
</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/12/stanford-law-review-issue-621-december-2009.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Stanford Law Review, Issue 61:6 (April 2009)</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/05/stanford-law-review-issue-616-april-2009.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/05/stanford-law-review-issue-616-april-2009.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 May 2009 01:12:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Stanford Law Review</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Stanford)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev Contents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.concurringopinions.com/?p=16502</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p></p>
<p>Stanford Law Review, Issue 61:6 (April 2009)</p>
<p>SYMPOSIUM: MEDIA, JUSTICE, AND THE LAW</p>
<p>Introduction</p>
<p>ARTICLES</p>
<p>Investigating the &#8216;CSI Effect&#8217; Effect: Media and Litigation Crisis in Criminal Law
</p>
<p>Simon A. Cole &#38; Rachel Dioso-Villa
</p>
<p>Criminal Madness: Cultural Iconography and Insanity
</p>
<p>Russell D. Covey
</p>
<p>Virtue and Vice: Who Will Report on the Failings of the Criminal Justice System?
</p>
<p>William R. Montross &#38; Patrick Mulvaney
</p>
<p>Racing the Closet
</p>
<p>Russell K. Robinson
</p>
<p>NOTE</p>
<p>Ex Parte Blogging: The Legal Ethics of Supreme Court Advocacy in the Internet Era
</p>
<p>Rachel C. Lee
</p>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/Banner%20Draft%205.jpg" alt="Banner Draft 5.jpg" width="355" height="101" /></p>
<p><a href="http://lawreview.stanford.edu/content/index.htm">Stanford Law Review, Issue 61:6 (April 2009)</a></p>
<p><strong>SYMPOSIUM: MEDIA, JUSTICE, AND THE LAW</strong></p>
<p><a href="http://lawreview.stanford.edu/content/vol61/issue6/Introduction.pdf">Introduction</a></p>
<p><strong>ARTICLES</strong></p>
<p><a href="http://lawreview.stanford.edu/content/vol61/issue6/Cole-Dioso-Villa.pdf">Investigating the &#8216;CSI Effect&#8217; Effect: Media and Litigation Crisis in Criminal Law<br />
</a></p>
<p><em>Simon A. Cole &amp; Rachel Dioso-Villa</em><strong><br />
</strong></p>
<p><a href="http://lawreview.stanford.edu/content/vol61/issue6/Covey.pdf">Criminal Madness: Cultural Iconography and Insanity<br />
</a></p>
<p><em>Russell D. Covey</em><strong><br />
</strong></p>
<p><a href="http://lawreview.stanford.edu/content/vol61/issue6/Montross-Mulvaney.pdf">Virtue and Vice: Who Will Report on the Failings of the Criminal Justice System?<br />
</a></p>
<p><em>William R. Montross &amp; Patrick Mulvaney</em><strong><br />
</strong></p>
<p><a href="http://lawreview.stanford.edu/content/vol61/issue6/Robinson.pdf">Racing the Closet</a><strong><br />
</strong></p>
<p><em>Russell K. Robinson</em><strong><br />
</strong></p>
<p><strong>NOTE</strong></p>
<p><a href="http://lawreview.stanford.edu/content/vol61/issue6/RLee.pdf">Ex Parte Blogging: The Legal Ethics of Supreme Court Advocacy in the Internet Era<br />
</a></p>
<p><em>Rachel C. Lee</em><strong><br />
</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/05/stanford-law-review-issue-616-april-2009.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Stanford Law Review, Issue 61:5 (March 2009)</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/05/stanford-law-review-issue-615-marchfebruary-2009.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/05/stanford-law-review-issue-615-marchfebruary-2009.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 May 2009 01:00:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Stanford Law Review</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Stanford)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev Contents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.concurringopinions.com/?p=16497</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p></p>
<p>Stanford Law Review, Issue 61:5 (March 2009)</p>
<p>ARTICLES</p>
<p>Jurisdiction&#8217;s Noble Lie</p>
<p>Frederic M. Bloom</p>
<p>The Injustice of Appearance
</p>
<p>Deborah L. Rhode</p>
<p>Private Immigration Screening in the Workplace</p>
<p>Stephen Lee</p>
<p>The Law, Culture, and Economics of Fashion
</p>
<p>C. Scott Hemphill &#38; Jeannie Suk</p>
<p>RESPONSE</p>
<p>The Piracy Paradox Revisited
</p>
<p>Kal Raustiala &#38; Christopher Sprigman</p>
<p>REPLY</p>
<p>Remix and Cultural Production
</p>
<p>C. Scott Hemphill &#38; Jeannie Suk</p>
<p>NOTES</p>
<p>Pleading Sovereign Immunity: The Doctrinal Underpinnings of Hans v. Louisiana and Ex Parte Young</p>
<p>Sina Kian
</p>
<p>Who May Be Tried Under the Military Commissions Act of 2006?</p>
<p>Michael Montaño</p>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/Banner%20Draft%205.jpg" alt="Banner Draft 5.jpg" width="355" height="101" /></p>
<p><a href="http://lawreview.stanford.edu/content/index.htm">Stanford Law Review, Issue 61:5 (March 2009)</a></p>
<p><strong>ARTICLES</strong></p>
<p><a href="http://lawreview.stanford.edu/content/vol61/issue5/Bloom.pdf">Jurisdiction&#8217;s Noble Lie</a></p>
<p><em>Frederic M. Bloom</em></p>
<p><a href="http://lawreview.stanford.edu/content/vol61/issue5/Rhode.pdf">The Injustice of Appearance<br />
</a></p>
<p><em>Deborah L. Rhode</em></p>
<p><a href="http://lawreview.stanford.edu/content/vol61/issue5/SLee.pdf">Private Immigration Screening in the Workplace</a></p>
<p><em>Stephen Lee</em></p>
<p><a href="http://lawreview.stanford.edu/content/vol61/issue5/Hemphill-Suk.pdf">The Law, Culture, and Economics of Fashion</a><strong><br />
</strong></p>
<p><em>C. Scott Hemphill &amp; Jeannie Suk</em></p>
<p><strong>RESPONSE</strong></p>
<p><a href="http://lawreview.stanford.edu/content/vol61/issue5/Raustiala-Sprigman.pdf">The Piracy Paradox Revisited<br />
</a></p>
<p><em>Kal Raustiala &amp; Christopher Sprigman</em></p>
<p><strong>REPLY</strong></p>
<p><a href="http://lawreview.stanford.edu/content/vol61/issue5/Hemphill-Suk-Reply.pdf">Remix and Cultural Production<br />
</a></p>
<p><em>C. Scott Hemphill &amp; Jeannie Suk</em></p>
<p><strong>NOTES</strong></p>
<p><a href="http://lawreview.stanford.edu/content/vol61/issue5/Kian.pdf">Pleading Sovereign Immunity: The Doctrinal Underpinnings of <em>Hans v. Louisiana </em>and <em>Ex Parte Young</em></a></p>
<p><em>Sina Kian</em><strong><br />
</strong></p>
<p><a href="http://lawreview.stanford.edu/content/vol61/issue5/Montano.pdf">Who May Be Tried Under the Military Commissions Act of 2006?</a></p>
<p><em>Michael Montaño</em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/05/stanford-law-review-issue-615-marchfebruary-2009.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Stanford Law Review, Issue 61:4 (February 2009)</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/04/stanford_law_re_3.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/04/stanford_law_re_3.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Apr 2009 21:40:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Stanford Law Review</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Stanford)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev Contents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.solove.org/archives/2009/04/stanford-law-review-issue-614-february-2009.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p></p>
<p>Stanford Law Review, Issue 61:4 (February 2009)</p>
<p>ARTICLES</p>
<p>Viewpoint Diversity and Media Consolidation: An Empirical Study</p>
<p>Daniel E. Ho &#038; Kevin M. Quinn</p>
<p>Institutional Design and the Policing of Prosecutors: Lessons from Administrative Law</p>
<p>Rachel E. Barkow</p>
<p>NOTES</p>
<p>The Reasonable Child Declarant After Davis v. Washington</p>
<p>Christopher Cannon Funk</p>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img alt="Banner Draft 5.jpg" src="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/Banner%20Draft%205.jpg" width="355" height="101" /></p>
<p><a href="http://lawreview.stanford.edu/content/index.htm">Stanford Law Review, Issue 61:4 (February 2009)</a></p>
<p><strong>ARTICLES</strong></p>
<p><a href="http://lawreview.stanford.edu/content/vol61/issue4/Ho-Quinn.pdf">Viewpoint Diversity and Media Consolidation: An Empirical Study</a></p>
<p><strong>Daniel E. Ho &#038; Kevin M. Quinn</strong></p>
<p><a href="http://lawreview.stanford.edu/content/vol61/issue4/Barkow.pdf">Institutional Design and the Policing of Prosecutors: Lessons from Administrative Law</a></p>
<p><strong>Rachel E. Barkow</strong></p>
<p><strong>NOTES</strong></p>
<p><a href="http://lawreview.stanford.edu/content/vol61/issue4/Funk.pdf">The Reasonable Child Declarant After Davis v. Washington</a></p>
<p><strong>Christopher Cannon Funk</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/04/stanford_law_re_3.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Stanford Law Review, Issue 61:3 (December 2008)</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/02/stanford_law_re_2.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/02/stanford_law_re_2.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Feb 2009 08:41:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Stanford Law Review</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Stanford)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev Contents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.solove.org/archives/2009/02/stanford-law-review-issue-613-december-2008.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p></p>
<p>Stanford Law Review, Issue 61:3 (December 2008)</p>
<p>ARTICLES</p>
<p>The Functions of Standing</p>
<p>Heather Elliott</p>
<p>The Myth of the Generalist Judge</p>
<p>Edward K. Cheng</p>
<p>Soft Law: Lessons from Congressional Practice</p>
<p>Jacob E. Gersen &#038; Eric A. Posner</p>
<p>Legislative Threats</p>
<p>Guy Halfteck</p>
<p>NOTES</p>
<p>Punitive Damages, Remunerated Research, and the Legal Profession</p>
<p>Shireen A. Barday</p>
<p>The Right of Confrontation, Ongoing Emergencies, and the Violent-Perpetrator-at-Large Problem</p>
<p>Scott G. Stewart</p>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img alt="Banner Draft 5.jpg" src="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/Banner%20Draft%205.jpg" width="355" height="101" /></p>
<p><a href="http://lawreview.stanford.edu/content/index.htm">Stanford Law Review, Issue 61:3 (December 2008)</a></p>
<p><strong>ARTICLES</strong></p>
<p><a href="http://lawreview.stanford.edu/content/vol61/issue3/Elliott.pdf">The Functions of Standing</a></p>
<p><strong>Heather Elliott</strong></p>
<p><a href="http://lawreview.stanford.edu/content/vol61/issue3/Cheng.pdf">The Myth of the Generalist Judge</a></p>
<p><strong>Edward K. Cheng</strong></p>
<p><a href="http://lawreview.stanford.edu/content/vol61/issue3/Gersen-Posner.pdf">Soft Law: Lessons from Congressional Practice</a></p>
<p><strong>Jacob E. Gersen &#038; Eric A. Posner</strong></p>
<p><a href="http://lawreview.stanford.edu/content/vol61/issue3/Halfteck.pdf">Legislative Threats</a></p>
<p><strong>Guy Halfteck</strong></p>
<p><strong>NOTES</strong></p>
<p><a href="http://lawreview.stanford.edu/content/vol61/issue3/BardayPD.pdf">Punitive Damages, Remunerated Research, and the Legal Profession</a></p>
<p><strong>Shireen A. Barday</strong></p>
<p><a href="http://lawreview.stanford.edu/content/vol61/issue3/Stewart.pdf">The Right of Confrontation, Ongoing Emergencies, and the Violent-Perpetrator-at-Large Problem</a></p>
<p><strong>Scott G. Stewart</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/02/stanford_law_re_2.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Stanford Law Review, Issue 61:2 (November 2008)</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/01/stanford_law_re_1.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/01/stanford_law_re_1.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jan 2009 04:35:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Stanford Law Review</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Stanford)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev Contents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.solove.org/archives/2009/01/stanford-law-review-issue-612-november-2008.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p></p>
<p>ARTICLES</p>
<p>Rethinking Constitutional Welfare Rights</p>
<p>Goodwin Liu</p>
<p>Corporate Crime and Deterrence</p>
<p>Assaf Hamdani &#038; Alon Klement</p>
<p>The Surprising Virtues of Treating Trade Secrets as IP Rights</p>
<p>Mark A. Lemley</p>
<p>Ask, Don&#8217;t Tell: Ethical Issues Surrounding Undocumented Workers&#8217; Status in Employment Litigation</p>
<p>Christine N. Cimini</p>
<p>RESPONSE</p>
<p>Military Lawyering and Professional Independence in the War on Terror: A Response to David Luban</p>
<p>Major General Charles J. Dunlap, Jr. &#038; Major Linell A. Letendre</p>
<p>COMMENT</p>
<p>FEC v. Wisconsin Right to . . . Petition?: A Comment on FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life</p>
<p>Shireen A. Barday</p>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img alt="Banner Draft 5.jpg" src="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/Banner%20Draft%205.jpg" width="355" height="101" /></p>
<p><strong>ARTICLES</strong></p>
<p><a href="http://lawreview.stanford.edu/content/vol61/issue2/Liu.pdf">Rethinking Constitutional Welfare Rights</a></p>
<p><strong>Goodwin Liu</strong></p>
<p><a href="http://lawreview.stanford.edu/content/vol61/issue2/Hamdani-Klement.pdf">Corporate Crime and Deterrence</a></p>
<p><strong>Assaf Hamdani &#038; Alon Klement</strong></p>
<p><a href="http://lawreview.stanford.edu/content/vol61/issue2/Lemley.pdf">The Surprising Virtues of Treating Trade Secrets as IP Rights</a></p>
<p><strong>Mark A. Lemley</strong></p>
<p><a href="http://lawreview.stanford.edu/content/vol61/issue2/Cimini.pdf">Ask, Don&#8217;t Tell: Ethical Issues Surrounding Undocumented Workers&#8217; Status in Employment Litigation</a></p>
<p><strong>Christine N. Cimini</strong></p>
<p><strong>RESPONSE</strong></p>
<p><a href="http://lawreview.stanford.edu/content/vol61/issue2/Dunlap-Letendre.pdf">Military Lawyering and Professional Independence in the War on Terror: A Response to David Luban</a></p>
<p><strong>Major General Charles J. Dunlap, Jr. &#038; Major Linell A. Letendre</strong></p>
<p><strong>COMMENT</strong></p>
<p><a href="http://lawreview.stanford.edu/content/vol61/issue2/Barday.pdf">FEC v. Wisconsin Right to . . . Petition?: A Comment on FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life</a></p>
<p><strong>Shireen A. Barday</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/01/stanford_law_re_1.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Stanford Law Review, Issue 61:1 (October 2008)</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/10/stanford_law_re.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/10/stanford_law_re.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Oct 2008 04:21:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Stanford Law Review</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Stanford)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev Contents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.solove.org/archives/2008/10/stanford-law-review-issue-611-october-2008.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p></p>
<p>Stanford Law Review, Issue 61:1 (October 2008)</p>
<p>ARTICLES</p>
<p>Mandatory Rules</p>
<p>Scott Dodson </p>
<p>Super Medians</p>
<p>Lee Epstein &#038; Tonja Jacobi</p>
<p>The End of Privacy</p>
<p>Jed Rubenfeld</p>
<p>Holmes on Emergencies</p>
<p>Adrian Vermeule</p>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img alt="Banner Draft 5.jpg" src="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/images/Banner%20Draft%205.jpg" width="355" height="101" /></p>
<p><a href="http://lawreview.stanford.edu/content/index.htm">Stanford Law Review, Issue 61:1 (October 2008)</a></p>
<p><strong>ARTICLES</strong></p>
<p><a href="http://lawreview.stanford.edu/content/vol61/issue1/Dodson.pdf">Mandatory Rules</a></p>
<p><strong>Scott Dodson </strong></p>
<p><a href="http://lawreview.stanford.edu/content/vol61/issue1/Epstein-Jacobi.pdf">Super Medians</a></p>
<p><strong>Lee Epstein &#038; Tonja Jacobi</strong></p>
<p><a href="http://lawreview.stanford.edu/content/vol61/issue1/Rubenfeld.pdf">The End of Privacy</p>
<p></a><strong>Jed Rubenfeld</strong></p>
<p><a href="http://lawreview.stanford.edu/content/vol61/issue1/Vermeule.pdf">Holmes on Emergencies</a></p>
<p><strong>Adrian Vermeule</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/10/stanford_law_re.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Announcing the Law Review Table of Contents Project</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/11/announcing_the_1.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/11/announcing_the_1.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Nov 2007 07:10:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Daniel Solove</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Administrative Announcements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Boston College)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Chicago)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Columbia)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Cornell)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Duke)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Emory)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Fordham)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (GW)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Georgetown)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Harvard)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Indiana)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Michigan)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Minnesota)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (NYU)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Northwestern)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Notre Dame)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (S Cal)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Stanford)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Texas)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (UCLA)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Vanderbilt)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Virginia)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Yale)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev Contents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.solove.org/archives/2007/11/announcing-the-law-review-table-of-contents-project.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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 [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img alt="table-of-contents1.jpg" src="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/images/table-of-contents1.jpg" width="379" height="293" ></p>
<p>I’m pleased to announce a new feature at Concurring Opinions – the <a href="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/law_rev_contents/">Law Review Table of Contents Project</a>.  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.</p>
<p>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!</p>
<p>Each journal’s tables of contents will be archived in two categories: (1) a category called <a href="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/law_rev_contents/">Law Rev Contents</a> – collecting all the law review table of contents postings; and (2) a category for each specific law review.</p>
<p>Participating law reviews thus far include:</p>
<p>* Boston College</p>
<p>* Chicago</p>
<p>* Columbia</p>
<p>* Cornell</p>
<p>* Duke</p>
<p>* Emory</p>
<p>* Fordham</p>
<p>* Georgetown</p>
<p>* GW</p>
<p>* Harvard</p>
<p>* Indiana</p>
<p>* Michigan</p>
<p>* Minnesota</p>
<p>* NYU</p>
<p>* Northwestern</p>
<p>* Notre Dame</p>
<p>* Southern California</p>
<p>* Stanford</p>
<p>* Texas</p>
<p>* UCLA</p>
<p>* Vanderbilt</p>
<p>* Virginia</p>
<p>* Washington University</p>
<p>* Yale</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/11/announcing_the_1.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>7</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
