Site Meter

Category: Law Rev (Vanderbilt)

0

Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 62, Number 4 (May 2009)

 

vlr3 

 

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.

0

Vanderbilt Law Review En Banc

en-banc-white

 

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.

0

Vanderbilt Law Review En Banc

Vanderbilt-LR-Forum-Logo1.gif

Vanderbilt Law Review En Banc

Reforming the Legal Ethics Curriculum: A Comment on Edward Rubin’s “What’s Wrong with Langdell’s Method and What To Do About It”

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.

0

Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 62, Number 3 (April 2009)

Vand-L-Rev-Logo.jpg

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.

0

Vanderbilt Law Review En Banc

Vanderbilt-LR-Forum-Logo1.gif

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.

0

Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 62, Number 2 (March 2009)

Vand-L-Rev-Logo.jpg

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.

0

Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 62, Number 1 (January 2009)

Vand-L-Rev-Logo.jpg

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.

0

Vanderbilt Law Review En Banc

Vanderbilt-LR-Forum-Logo1.gif

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.

3

Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 61, Number 6 (November 2008)

Vand-L-Rev-Logo.jpg

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.

0

Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 61, Number 5 (October 2008)

Vand-L-Rev-Logo.jpg

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).