Archive for the ‘Law Rev (Vanderbilt)’ Category
Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 62, Number 4 (May 2009)
posted by Vanderbilt Law Review
Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 62, Number 4 (May 2009)
ARTICLES
Kristin A. Collins, Administering Marriage: Marriage-Based Entitlements, Bureaucracy, and the Legal Construction of the Family, 62 Vand. L. Rev. 1085 (2009).
Kevin M. Stack, The Reviewability of the President’s Statutory Powers, 62 Vand. L. Rev. 1171 (2009).
ESSAY
Grant Hayden & Matthew Bodie, Arrow’s Theorem and the Exclusive Shareholder Franchise, 62 Vand. L. Rev. 1217 (2009).
NOTES
Lauren Lowe, What Employees Say, or What Employers Do: How Post-Cleveland Decisions Continue to Obscure Discrimination, 62 Vand. L. Rev. 1245 (2009).
John Benjamin Schrader, Reawakening “Privileges or Immunities”: An Originalist Blueprint for Invalidating State Felon Disenfranchisement Laws, 62 Vand. L. Rev. 1285 (2009).
Charles Thompson Switzer, Escaping the Takings Maze: Impact Fees and the Limits of the Takings Clause, 62 Vand. L. Rev. 1315 (2009).
Interested in writing a response to one of these articles? Check out our website to find out how.
June 23, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Posted in: Law Rev (Vanderbilt), Law Rev Contents
Print This Post
No Comments
Vanderbilt Law Review En Banc
posted by Vanderbilt Law Review
Defending a Social Learning Explanation: A Comment on The Origins of Shared Intuitions of Justice
by Christopher Brett Jaeger
This Response addresses the November 2007 Vanderbilt Law Review Article, The Origins of Shared Intuitions of Justice, by Professors Paul H. Robinson, Robert Kurzban, and Owen D. Jones. The Article reviews empirical evidence that people share surprisingly similar moral inclinations—especially with respect to core social principles like opposition to unprovoked physical harm, the taking of property, and cheating in exchanges—and argues that a specific evolved human mechanism provides a more plausible explanation of these similarities than an accumulated social learning theory.
This Response defines the “accumulated social learning” theory and defends it, addressing its purported shortcomings and highlighting areas in which accumulated social learning theory explains present evidence better than an evolutionary theory. Specifically, this Response explains that accumulated social learning theory predicts that people will widely share core moral inclinations, just like evolutionary theory. Furthermore, on the more peripheral issues in which the data demonstrate that moral inclinations differ, social learning theory better accounts for the differences. This Response concludes that accumulated social learning theory provides the simpler, cleaner explanation of the current data.
June 23, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Posted in: Law Rev (Vanderbilt)
Print This Post
No Comments
Vanderbilt Law Review En Banc
posted by Vanderbilt Law Review
Vanderbilt Law Review En Banc
by Lauren Solberg
This Response addresses Edward Rubin’s March 2007 article “What’s Wrong With Langdell’s Method and What to Do About It,” which discusses the need for curriculum reform in U.S. law schools. He proposes a curriculum overhaul to reform, at a minimum, first-year law school courses, and he advocates that law schools develop more concentrations—programs akin to undergraduate majors—to offer students a more cohesive curriculum. Rubin also briefly mentions general student and faculty distaste for the course in professional responsibility required by most law schools but proposes no remedy for this issue.
This Response proposes to supplement Rubin’s suggested comprehensive reform with just such a remedy. Recent publications suggest that the required professional responsibility course in its current form is indeed disliked, outdated, and fails to teach law students adequately about real-world ethical issues in legal practice. To resolve this problem, law schools should implement a re-tooled legal ethics curriculum that weaves legal ethics into each core course in the law school curriculum. This method of integration, known as the “pervasive method,” will educate students about practical and relevant ethical issues associated with the particular legal discipline in conjunction with the standard course material. It will serve to reduce monotony in the coursework and provide a better setting than the standard Professional Responsibility course for examining real-world ethical issues in legal practice.
This Response will discuss how to implement the pervasive method in the law school setting and the advantages and disadvantages that accompany it.
Interested in writing a response for En Banc? Check out our website to find out how.
May 5, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Posted in: Law Rev (Vanderbilt), Law Rev Forum
Print This Post
No Comments
Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 62, Number 3 (April 2009)
posted by Vanderbilt Law Review
Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 62, Number 3 (April 2009)
ARTICLES
Tomer Broude & Doron Teichman, Outsourcing and Insourcing Crime: The Political Economy of Globalized Criminal Activity, 62 Vand. L. Rev. 795 (2009).
Terry A. Maroney, Emotional Common Sense as Constitutional Law, 62 Vand. L. Rev. 851 (2009).
Caren Myers Morrison, Privacy, Accountability, and the Cooperating Defendant: Towards a New Role for Internet Access to Court Records, 62 Vand. L. Rev. 921 (2009).
NOTES
Lesley R. Attkisson, Putting a Stop to Sprawl: State Intervention as a Tool for Growth Management, 62 Vand. L. Rev. 979 (2009).
Lauren Gaffney, The Circle of Assent: How “Agreement” Can Save Mandatory Arbitration in Long-Term Care Contracts, 62 Vand. L. Rev. 1017 (2009).
Georgia Lee Sims, The Criminalization of Mental Illness: How Theoretical Failures Create Real Problems in the Criminal Justice System, 62 Vand. L. Rev. 1053 (2009).
Interested in writing a response to one of these articles? Check out En Banc to find out how.
April 30, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Posted in: Law Rev (Vanderbilt), Law Rev Contents
Print This Post
No Comments
Vanderbilt Law Review En Banc
posted by Vanderbilt Law Review
Vanderbilt Law Review En Banc
Relative Difference and the Dean Method: A Comment on “Getting the Math Right”
by Mark Bell
This Response critiques a recent Article in the Vanderbilt Law Review, Getting the Math Right: Why California Has Too Many Seats in the House of Representatives, by Professor Paul H. Edelman, on the doctrine of “one person one vote” as applied to congressional apportionment. Professor Edelman discusses the background of “one person one vote” in the congressional apportionment context and asserts that because of a mathematical flaw, the Supreme Court in U.S. Department of Commerce v. Montana incorrectly permitted a method of congressional apportionment that is not in accordance with “one person one vote.” Professor Edelman’s mathematical assertion is fundamentally correct; the Court did not use the correct denominator in its calculations. However, this Response argues that even if the Court had been presented with the correct mathematical calculations, the Court should not have been persuaded. This Response also argues that there should be a distinction between relative deviation—used in districting—and relative difference—used in apportionment—and proposes a method for calculating relative difference that differs from the ones that Professor Edelman and the Court proposed.
Interested in writing a response for Vanderbilt Law Review En Banc? Check out our website to find out how.
April 13, 2009 at 8:38 am
Posted in: Law Rev (Vanderbilt), Law Rev Forum
Print This Post
No Comments
Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 62, Number 2 (March 2009)
posted by Vanderbilt Law Review
Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 62, Number 2 (March 2009)
2009 Symposium on Neglected Supreme Court Justices
James W. Ely, Jr. & Mark E. Brandon, Introduction: The Rankings Game, 62 Vand. L. Rev. 311 (2009).
G. Edward White, Neglected Justices: Discounting for History, 62 Vand. L. Rev. 319 (2009).
Stephen B. Presser, Samuel Chase: In Defense of the Rule of Law and Against the Jeffersonians, 62 Vand. L. Rev. 349 (2009).
William R. Casto, There Were Great Men Before Agamemnon, 62 Vand. L. Rev. 371 (2009).
Mark R. Killenbeck, William Johnson, the Dog that Did Not Bark?, 62 Vand. L. Rev. 407 (2009).
Herbert A. Johnson, Bushrod Washington, 62 Vand. L. Rev. 447 (2009).
Austin Allen, Jacksonian Jurisprudence and the Obscurity of Justice John Catron, 62 Vand. L. Rev. 491 (2009).
Paul Finkelman, John McLean: Moderate Abolitionist and Supreme Court Politician, 62 Vand. L. Rev. 519 (2009).
J. Gordon Hylton, The Perils of Popularity: David Josiah Brewer and the Politics of Judicial Reputation, 62 Vand. L. Rev. 567 (2009).
James W. Ely, Jr., Rufus W. Peckham and Economic Liberty, 62 Vand. L. Rev. 591 (2009).
Samuel R. Olken, Justice Sutherland Reconsidered, 62 Vand. L. Rev. 639 (2009).
David R. Stras, Pierce Butler: A Supreme Technician, 62 Vand. L. Rev. 695 (2009).
Linda C. Gugin, Sherman Minton: Restraint Against a Tide of Activism, 62 Vand. L. Rev. 757 (2009).
*Audio recordings from the Conference presentations that contributed to this Symposium issue are available on our website.
Interested in writing a response to one of these articles? Check out En Banc to find out how.
March 31, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Posted in: Law Rev (Vanderbilt), Law Rev Contents
Print This Post
No Comments
Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 62, Number 1 (January 2009)
posted by Vanderbilt Law Review
Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 62, Number 1 (January 2009)
ARTICLES
Richard A. Nagareda, Aggregate Litigation Across the Atlantic and the Future of American Exceptionalism, 62 Vand. L. Rev. 1 (2009).
Rigel C. Oliveri, Between a Rock and a Hard Place: Landlords, Latinos, Anti-Illegal Immigrant Ordinances, and Housing Discrimination, 62 Vand. L. Rev. 55 (2009).
Robert B. Thompson & Paul H. Edelman, Corporate Voting, 62 Vand. L. Rev. 129 (2009).
ESSAY
Samuel Issacharoff & Geoffrey P. Miller, Will Aggregate Litigation Come to Europe?, 62 Vand. L. Rev. 179 (2009).
NOTES
Matthew Hardwick Blumenstein, RICO Overreach: How the Federal Government’s Escalating Offensive Against Gangs Has Run Afoul of the Constitution, 62 Vand. L. Rev. 211 (2009).
Erin M. Carter, Pragmatic Selective Waiver: Re-Aligning Corporate Executives’ Personal Interests with Those of the Corporation Amidst Government Investigations, 62 Vand. L. Rev. 239 (2009).
Robert John Grubb II, Attorneys, Accountants, and Bankers, Oh My! Primary Liability for Secondary Actors in the Wake of Stoneridge, 62 Vand. L. Rev. 275 (2009).
Interested in writing a response to one of these articles? Check out our website to find out how.
January 30, 2009 at 8:00 am
Posted in: Law Rev (Vanderbilt), Law Rev Contents
Print This Post
No Comments
Vanderbilt Law Review En Banc
posted by Vanderbilt Law Review
Vanderbilt Law Review En Banc
Wrongs Without Recourse: A Comment on Jason Solomon’s Judging Plaintiffs
by Professor John C.P. Goldberg
November 22, 2008
Jason Solomon’s very interesting Article Judging Plaintiffs argues that neither efficient-deterrence theories nor corrective justice theories adequately explain the existence of rules that bar or limit recovery by a tort victim on the ground that she failed to take certain pre-tort steps to protect herself from harm, or failed to take certain post-tort steps in response to the harm. The vitality of these “judging plaintiffs” doctrines, he maintains, attests to the superiority of an alternative theory of tort known as civil recourse theory. According to Solomon, recourse theory treats tort law as one component of a liberal political order and thus explains these doctrines in terms of a liberal principle calling for state nonintervention where it was or is unnecessary. In this Response, I situate Judging Plaintiffs within current tort theory debates, describe briefly its major claims, and discuss some of the doctrinal and theoretical strengths and weaknesses of the position it stakes out.
Interested in writing a response for En Banc? Check out our website to find out how.
November 24, 2008 at 8:49 am
Posted in: Law Rev (Vanderbilt), Law Rev Forum
Print This Post
No Comments
Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 61, Number 6 (November 2008)
posted by Vanderbilt Law Review
Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 61, Number 6 (November 2008)
ARTICLES
Nestor M. Davidson, Standardization and Pluralism in Property Law, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 1597 (2008).
Lumen N. Mulligan, A Unified Theory of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Jurisdiction, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 1667 (2008).
Jonathan Remy Nash & Rafael I. Pardo, An Empirical Investigation into Appellate Structure and the Perceived Quality of Appellate Review, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 1745 (2008).
ESSAY
Tracy E. George & Chris Guthrie, “The Threes”: Re-Imagining Supreme Court Decisionmaking, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 1825 (2008).
NOTES
John A. Greer, If the Shoe Fits: Reconciling the International Shoe Minimum Contacts Test with the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 1861 (2008).
Christopher Brett Jaeger, “Does that Sound Familiar?”: Creators’ Liability for Unconscious Copyright Infringement, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 1903 (2008).
Andrew Smith, Brady Obligations, Criminal Sanctions, and Solutions in a New Era of Scrutiny, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 1935 (2008).
Interested in writing a response to one of these articles? Check out our website to find out how.
November 21, 2008 at 6:21 am
Posted in: Law Rev (Vanderbilt)
Print This Post
3 Comments
Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 61, Number 5 (October 2008)
posted by Vanderbilt Law Review
Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 61, Number 5 (October 2008)
ARTICLES
Scott Dodson, A Darwinist View of the Living Constitution, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 1319 (2008).
Frances H. Foster, Individualized Justice in Disputes over Dead Bodies, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 1351 (2008).
Darian M. Ibrahim, The (Not So) Puzzling Behavior of Angel Investors, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 1405 (2008).
Austen L. Parrish, The Effects Test: Extraterritoriality’s Fifth Business, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 1455 (2008).
NOTES
John Haubenreich, The iPhone and the DMCA: Locking the Hands of Consumers, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 1507 (2008).
Tory H. Lewis, Managing Manure: Using Good Neighbor Agreements to Regulate Pollution from Agricultural Production, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 1555 (2008).
October 29, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Posted in: Law Rev (Vanderbilt), Law Rev Contents
Print This Post
No Comments
Vanderbilt Law Review En Banc
posted by Vanderbilt Law Review
Vanderbilt Law Review is proud to announce the launch of its online companion, En Banc. In its first publication, En Banc presents a Response by Professor Randall S. Thomas to an Article by Professors Stephen Choi and Jill Fisch.
Public Pension Funds as Shareholder Activists: A Comment on Choi and Fisch
by Professor Randall S. Thomas
October 6, 2008
This Response critiques a recent Article on public pension fund shareholder activism by Stephen Choi and Jill Fisch. Choi and Fisch use the results of a survey of forty public pension funds as a basis for an empirical and normative analysis of public pension fund activism. Choi and Fisch’s survey evidence gives us some tantalizing glimpses inside the black box of public pension fund activism. At the end of the day though, we are still left with significant questions. This Response raises some of these questions, critiquing the representativeness of Choi and Fisch’s sample, their interpretation of the survey results on litigation and non-litigation activism, and the “right” place for public pension funds in the spectrum of shareholder activists.
October 7, 2008 at 7:58 am
Posted in: Law Rev (Vanderbilt), Law Rev Forum
Print This Post
No Comments
Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 61, Number 4 (May 2008)
posted by Vanderbilt Law Review
Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 61, Number 4 (May 2008)
ARTICLES
Scott D. Gerber, The Court, the Constitution, and the History of Ideas, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 1067 (2008).
James R. Repetti, Democracy and Opportunity: A New Paradigm in Tax Equity, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 1129 (2008).
Peter B. Rutledge, Arbitration and Article III, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 1189 (2008).
NOTES
Gabriel Jacob Fleet, What’s in a Song? Copyright’s Unfair Treatment of Record Producers and Side Musicians, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 1235 (2008).
Linda Katherine Leibfarth, Giving the Terminally Ill Their Due (Process): A Case for Expanded Access to Experimental Drugs Through the Political Process, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 1281 (2008).
June 14, 2008 at 7:59 am
Posted in: Law Rev (Vanderbilt), Law Rev Contents
Print This Post
No Comments
Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 61, Number 3 (April 2008)
posted by Vanderbilt Law Review
Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 61, Number 3 (April 2008)
ARTICLES
Michael J. Gerhardt, Non-Judicial Precedent, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 713 (2008).
Clare Huntington, The Constitutional Dimension of Immigration Federalism, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 787 (2008).
Noah D. Zatz, Working at the Boundaries of Markets: Prison Labor and the Economic Dimension of Employment Relationships, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 857 (2008).
NOTES
Christyne E. Ferris, The Search for Due Process in Civil Commitment Hearings: How Procedural Realities Have Altered Substantive Standards, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 959 (2008).
Russell Fraker, Reformulating Outrage: A Critical Analysis of the Problematic Tort of IIED, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 983 (2008).
Nicholas Nugent, Toward a RFRA That Works, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 1027 (2008).
May 31, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Posted in: Law Rev (Vanderbilt), Law Rev Contents
Print This Post
No Comments
Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 61, Number 2 (March 2008)
posted by Vanderbilt Law Review
Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 61, Number 2 (March 2008)
ARTICLES
Randall S. Thomas, The Evolving Role of Institutional Investors in Corporate Governance and Corporate Litigation, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 299 (2008).
Stephen J. Choi & Jill E. Fisch, On Beyond CalPERS: Survey Evidence on the Developing Role of Public Pension Funds in Corporate Governance, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 315 (2008).
James D. Cox, Randall S. Thomas, Lynn Bai, There Are Plaintiffs and . . . There are Plaintiffs: An Empirical Analysis of Securities Class Action Settlements, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 355 (2008).
Kenneth B. Davis, Jr., The Forgotten Derivative Suit, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 387 (2008).
Jesse M. Fried, Hands-Off Options, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 453 (2008).
Jeffrey N. Gordon, Proxy Contests in an Era of Increasing Shareholder Power: Forget Issuer Proxy Access and Focus on E-Proxy, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 475 (2008).
Lyman Johnson, A Fresh Look at Director “Independence”: Mutual Fund Fee Litigation and Gartenberg at Twenty-Five, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 497 (2008).
Elliot J. Weiss, The Lead Plaintiff Provisions of the PSLRA After a Decade, or “Look What’s Happened to My Baby”, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 543 (2008).
NOTES
Leah Bressack, Small Claim Mass Fraud Actions: A Proposal for Aggregate Litigation Under RICO, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 579 (2008).
Sybil Louise Dunlop, Are an Empty Head and a Pure Heart Enough? Mens Rea Standards for Judge-Imposed Rule 11 Sanctions and Their Effects on Attorney Action, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 615 (2008).
Elizabeth C. Minogue, Increasing the Effectiveness of the Security Council’s Chapter VII Authority in the Current Situations Before the International Criminal Court, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 647 (2008).
Uta Oberdörster, Why Ratify? Lessons from Treaty Ratification Campaigns, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 681 (2008).
SYMPOSIUM
Click here for links at our website to listen to audio files from our recent Conference on Judicial Reputation: Neglected Supreme Court Justices!
April 22, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Posted in: Law Rev (Vanderbilt), Law Rev Contents
Print This Post
No Comments
Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 61, Number 1 (January 2008)
posted by Vanderbilt Law Review
Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 61, Number 1 (January 2008)
ARTICLES
Tracey E. George & Albert H. Yoon, Chief Judges: The Limits of Attitudinal Theory and Possible Paradox of Managerial Judging, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 1 (2008).
Alex Stein, Constitutional Evidence Law, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 65 (2008).
Katrina Miriam Wyman, Is There a Moral Justification for Redressing Historical Injustices?, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 127 (2008).
ESSAY
Michael J. Saks & Jonathan J. Koehler, The Individualization Fallacy in Forensic Science Evidence, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 199 (2008).
NOTES
James Aaron George, Offender Profiling and Expert Testimony: Scientifically Valid or Glorified Results?, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 221 (2008).
Christopher D. Tomlinson, Changing the Rules of Establishment Clause Litigation: An Alternative to the Public Expression of Religion Act, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 261 (2008).
February 29, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Posted in: Law Rev (Vanderbilt), Law Rev Contents
Print This Post
No Comments
Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 60, Number 6 (November 2007)
posted by Vanderbilt Law Review
Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 60, Number 6 (November 2007)
ARTICLES
Paul H. Robinson, Robert Kurzban and Owen D. Jones, The Origins of Shared Intuitions of Justice, 60 Vand. L. Rev. 1633 (2007).
Richard Delgado, Rodrigo’s Corrido: Race, Postcolonial Theory, and U.S. Civil Rights, 60 Vand. L. Rev. 1691 (2007).
Jason M. Solomon, Judging Plaintiffs, 60 Vand. L. Rev. 1749 (2007).
NOTES
Anna Byrne, Special Project: Immigration
Anna Byrne, What is Extreme Cruelty? Judicial Review of Deportation Cancellation Decisions for Victims of Domestic Abuse, 60 Vand. L. Rev. 1815 (2007).
Andrew David Kennedy, Expedited Injustice: The Problems Regarding the Current Law of Expedited Removal of Aggravated Felons, 60 Vand. L. Rev. 1847 (2007).
Nicole Lerescu, Barring Too Much: An Argument in Favor of Interpreting the Immigration and Nationality Act Section 101(a)(42) to Include a Duress Exception, 60 Vand. L. Rev. 1875 (2007).
February 19, 2008 at 10:50 am
Posted in: Law Rev (Vanderbilt), Law Rev Contents
Print This Post
No Comments
Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 60, Number 5 (October 2007)
posted by Vanderbilt Law Review
Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 60, Number 5 (October 2007)
ARTICLES
Chris Brummer, The Ties That Bind? Regionalism, Commercial Treaties, and the Future of Global Economic Integration, 60 Vand. L. Rev. 1349 (2007).
Lawrence A. Cunningham, A Prescription to Retire the Rhetoric of “Principles-Based Systems” in Corporate Law, Securities Regulation, and Accounting, 60 Vand. L. Rev. 1411 (2007).
Kim Forde-Mazrui, Ruling Out the Rule of Law, 60 Vand. L. Rev. 1497 (2007).
NOTES
Trevor Cloak, The Digital Titanic: The Sinking of YouTube.com in the DMCA’s Safe Harbor, 60 Vand. L. Rev. 1559 (2007).
William Carlos Spaht, Overcoming Another Tragedy in New Orleans: Rebuilding in the Wake of Kelo and Act No. 851, 60 Vand. L. Rev. 1599 (2007).
February 19, 2008 at 10:34 am
Posted in: Law Rev (Vanderbilt), Law Rev Contents
Print This Post
No Comments
Announcing the Law Review Table of Contents Project
posted by Daniel Solove
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.
November 13, 2007 at 12:10 am
Posted in: Administrative Announcements, Law Rev (Boston College), Law Rev (Chicago), Law Rev (Columbia), Law Rev (Cornell), Law Rev (Duke), Law Rev (Emory), Law Rev (Fordham), Law Rev (Georgetown), Law Rev (GW), Law Rev (Harvard), Law Rev (Indiana), Law Rev (Michigan), Law Rev (Minnesota), Law Rev (Northwestern), Law Rev (Notre Dame), Law Rev (NYU), Law Rev (S Cal), Law Rev (Stanford), Law Rev (Texas), Law Rev (UCLA), Law Rev (Vanderbilt), Law Rev (Virginia), Law Rev (Yale), Law Rev Contents
Print This Post
7 Comments
