Virginia Law Review 96:4 (June 2010)

ARTICLES

Countering the Majoritarian Difficulty by Amanda Frost and Stefanie A. Lindquist

Race, Sex, and Rulemaking: Administrative Constitutionalism and the Workplace, 1960 to the Present by Sophia Lee

NOTE

Prospects for Judicial Review of Arbitration Awards Under State Law by Stephen Murphy

Virginia Law Review 96:2 (April 2010)

ARTICLES

An Empirical Examination of Business Outsourcing Transactions by George S. Geis

Unbundled Powers by Jacob E. Gersen

Reclaiming the Immigration Constitution of the Early Republic: Prospectivity, Uniformity, and Transparency by James Pfander and Theresa Wardon

NOTE

Confusion and Coercion in Church Property Litigation by Brian Schmalzbach

In Brief, the online companion to the Virginia Law Review, recently published an essay by David Horton concerning the upcoming Rent-a-Center v. Jackson case, scheduled for oral arguments before the Supreme Court in April 2010, which the author argues will have “profound implications” for the future of American dispute resolution.  The essay is entitled, “The Mandatory Core of Section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act.”

Professor Horton writes: “The issue before the Court is not the merits of Antonio Jackson’s civil rights lawsuit against his former employer, nor even the validity of the mandatory arbitration contract that he was required to sign before he could begin work. Instead, the Court must decide whether Jackson—and the hundreds of millions of other employees, consumers, and franchisees who are subject to [...]]]>

In Brief, the online companion to the Virginia Law Review, recently published an essay by David Horton concerning the upcoming Rent-a-Center v. Jackson case, scheduled for oral arguments before the Supreme Court in April 2010, which the author argues will have “profound implications” for the future of American dispute resolution.  The essay is entitled, “The Mandatory Core of Section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act.”

Professor Horton writes: “The issue before the Court is not the merits of Antonio Jackson’s civil rights lawsuit against his former employer, nor even the validity of the mandatory arbitration contract that he was required to sign before he could begin work. Instead, the Court must decide whether Jackson—and the hundreds of millions of other employees, consumers, and franchisees who are subject to mandatory arbitration clauses—have a non-waivable right to challenge the fairness of such provisions in federal court. Because the Federal Arbitration Act (‘FAA’) allows courts to nullify one-sided arbitration clauses under the unconscionability doctrine, the judiciary has traditionally served as a bulwark against harsh dispute resolution terms. Yet the contract at issue in Rent-a-Center expressly gives the arbitrator, not courts, the sole authority to decide whether ‘any part of this Agreement is void.’”

[Read More]

Virginia Law Review 96:1 (March 2010)

ARTICLES

Placebo Ethics: A Study in Securities Disclosure Arbitrage by Usha Rodriques and Mike Stegemoller

Close Enough for Government Work: The Committee Rulemaking Game by Paul J. Stancil

Reasonable Agencies by David Zaring

NOTE

When Injury is Unavoidable: The Vaccine Act’s Limited Preemption of Design Defect Claims by Nitin Shah

Virginia Law Review 95:8 (December 2009)

ARTICLES

Making Good on Good Intentions by Katharine T. Bartlett

The State of State Anti-takeover Law by Michal Barzuza

NOTES

Incarceration, Accommodation, and Strict Scrutiny by James Nelson

Internet Radio: The Case for a Technology Neutral Royalty Standard by Andrew Stockment

Virginia Law Review 95:7 (November 2009)

ARTICLES

Interrogation Stories by Anne M. Coughlin

Constitutional Enforcement by Proxy by John F. Preis

Counterinsurgency, The War on Terror, and The Laws of War by Ganesh Sitaraman

NOTES

The Free Exercise Rights of Religious Institutions: Church Property and the Constitutionality of Virginia Code § 57-9 by Fiona McCarthy

Virginia Law Review 95:6 (October 2009)

ARTICLES

Robert M. Chesney

Gregory Klass

 ESSAY

Gideon Parchomovsky  & Alex Stein

NOTE

David K. Roberts

Virginia Law Review 95:5 (September 2009)

ARTICLES

M. Elizabeth Magill

NOTES

Matt Nicholson

Virginia Law Review 95:4 (June 2009)

Symposium Issue: The SEC in a Time of Discontinuity

The SEC in a Time of Discontinuity: Introduction to Virginia Law Review Symposium

Joel Seligman

ARTICLES

The Race for the Bottom in Corporate Governance

Frank H. Easterbrook

Redesigning the SEC: Does the Treasury Have a Better Idea?

John C. Coffee, Jr. and Hillary A. Sale 

ESSAY

The Securities [...]]]> VOLUME 95      JUNE 2009     ISSUE 4

Virginia Law Review 95:4 (June 2009)

Symposium Issue: The SEC in a Time of Discontinuity

The SEC in a Time of Discontinuity: Introduction to Virginia Law Review Symposium

Joel Seligman

ARTICLES

The Race for the Bottom in Corporate Governance	Frank H. Easterbrook
Redesigning the SEC: Does the Treasury Have a Better Idea?	John C. Coffee, Jr. and Hillary A. Sale
Top Cop or Regulatory Flop? The SEC at 75	Jill E. Fisch
Commentary On Redesigning The Sec: Does The Treasury Have A Better Idea?	Steven M.H. Wallman
Securities Law and the New Deal Justices	A.C. Pritchard and Robert B. Thompson

ESSAY

The Securities Laws and the Mechanics of Legal Change

Barry Cushman

ARTICLES

Coping in a Global Marketplace: Survival Strategies for a 75-Year-Old SEC	James D. Cox
Treatment Differences and Political Realities in the GAAP-IFRS Debate	William W. Bratton and Lawrence A. Cunningham
The SEC, Retail Investors, and the Institutionalization of the Securities Markets	Donald C. Langevoort

ESSAYS

Whither the SEC Now?	Brian G. Cartwright
A Requiem for the Retail Investor?	Alicia Davis Evans

]]> http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/07/virginia-law-review-954-june-2009-the-sec-in-a-time-of-discontinuity.html/feed 0 http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/05/virginia-law-review-953-may-2009.html http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/05/virginia-law-review-953-may-2009.html#comments Thu, 28 May 2009 02:19:51 +0000 Virginia Law Review http://www.concurringopinions.com/?p=16510 VOLUME 95      MAY 2009     ISSUE 3

Virginia Law Review 95:3 (May 2009)

ESSAY

Kenneth S. Abraham

 ARTICLE

Michael Doran

 ESSAYS

Chevron Has Only One Step

Matthew C. Stephenson and Adrian Vermeule

NOTE

Deciding on Doctrine: Anti-miscegenation Statutes and the Development of Equal Protection Analysis

Rebecca Schoff 

Virginia Law Review 95:2 (April 2009)

ESSAY

Of Guns, Abortions, and the Unraveling Rule of Law

Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III

ARTICLE

The Antitrust of Reputation Mechanisms: Institutional Economics and Concerted Refusals to Deal

Barak D. Richman 

NOTES

Unmasking John Doe: Setting a Standard for Discovery in Anonymous Internet Defamation Cases

Jessica L. Chilson 

Virginia Law Review 94:5 (September 2008)

ARTICLE

Cities, Economic Development, and the Free Trade Constitution

by Richard C. Schragger

NOTES

by Tom Chen

How Automobile Accidents Stalled the Development of Interspousal Liability

by Elizabeth Katz

BOOK REVIEW

The Chicken and the Egg: Kenneth S. Abraham’s The Liability Century

by Adam F. Scales

In Brief, the online companion to the Virginia Law Review, recently published a discussion centered around Professor Melissa Murray’s article The Networked Family: Reframing the Legal Understanding of Caregiving and Caregivers, published in the April 2008 Issue of the Virginia Law Review:

Professor Susan Frelich Appleton’s response, The Networked—Yet Still Hierarchical—Family, considers “what Murray’s call for recognition of caregiving networks might mean, first, for the traditional gender stereotypes that family law once embraced but now professes to reject and, then, for the issues of race and class that family law all too routinely ignores.”

In Rights and Realities, Professor Laura A. Rosenbury supports Professor Murray’s proposals “to the extent that they force reformers and scholars to confront who benefits and who is harmed by legal conceptions of [...]]]>

In Brief, the online companion to the Virginia Law Review, recently published a discussion centered around Professor Melissa Murray’s article The Networked Family: Reframing the Legal Understanding of Caregiving and Caregivers, published in the April 2008 Issue of the Virginia Law Review:

Professor Susan Frelich Appleton’s response, The Networked—Yet Still Hierarchical—Family, considers “what Murray’s call for recognition of caregiving networks might mean, first, for the traditional gender stereotypes that family law once embraced but now professes to reject and, then, for the issues of race and class that family law all too routinely ignores.”

In Rights and Realities, Professor Laura A. Rosenbury supports Professor Murray’s proposals “to the extent that they force reformers and scholars to confront who benefits and who is harmed by legal conceptions of the family, even ones that have been expanded to reflect functional approaches to the family,” but fears “that Murray’s analysis may be held back by an assumption about the appropriate relationship between rights and reality often embraced by family law scholars including, at times, by Murray herself.”

Finally, in Parents as Hubs, Professor Clare Huntington “wholeheartedly agree[s] with Professor Murray that the law should support families in providing care,” and advances the conversation by engaging “with a central aspect of Professor Murray’s argument: the nature of the recognition she argues that the law should provide for nonparental caregivers.” Professor Huntington goes on consider whether recognition should be “simply cognizance of and greater attention to the care provided by nonparents” or “direct legal protection of the relationship between a nonparental caregiver and a family.”

In Brief, the online companion to the Virginia Law Review, recently published a discussion centered around Professor Matthew T. Bodie’s article Information and the Market for Union Representation, published in the March 2008 Issue of the Virginia Law Review:

Professor Catherine Fisk’s response worries that “[w]hile Professor Bodie does an admirable job of explaining why information matters, the process will not be significantly improved if an argument for more information is taken as an argument to protect the status quo of misleading and one-sided information.”

In Rent-to-Own Unionism?, Professor Jeffrey M. Hirsch notes that “Bodie rightly decries the NLRB’s failure to ensure that employees have access to the information needed to make a fully informed decision whether to unionize,” but remains unconvinced “that the gains from a [...]]]>

In Brief, the online companion to the Virginia Law Review, recently published a discussion centered around Professor Matthew T. Bodie’s article Information and the Market for Union Representation, published in the March 2008 Issue of the Virginia Law Review:

Professor Catherine Fisk’s response worries that “[w]hile Professor Bodie does an admirable job of explaining why information matters, the process will not be significantly improved if an argument for more information is taken as an argument to protect the status quo of misleading and one-sided information.”

In Rent-to-Own Unionism?, Professor Jeffrey M. Hirsch notes that “Bodie rightly decries the NLRB’s failure to ensure that employees have access to the information needed to make a fully informed decision whether to unionize,” but remains unconvinced “that the gains from a consumer approach to union elections are large enough to warrant the regulatory response it demands.”

In Professor Harry G. Hutchinson’s response, he identifies and addresses three shortcomings in Professor Bodie’s proposal: “First, unions may resist disclosure initiatives unless they are paired with a card-check certification program, which defeats the goal of enabling workers to make rational decisions about union membership. Second, Bodie’s conception of capture focuses on employer capture and ignores the problem of capture by outside interest groups aligned with union hierarchs. Finally, Bodie’s mistaken conclusion that unions secure better conditions for workers leads to a faulty assessment of the problem of free riding.”

To conclude the forum, in The Market for Union Services: Reframing the Debate, Professor Bodie writes “a brief reply to their efforts, in hopes that it is just the beginning of a much more extended conversation about the way we conceive of and regulate union representation.” He focuses on the various policy implications of his proposal suggested by the other authors, specifically the effects of mandatory disclosure, card-check and neutrality agreements, and the idea that more information could lead to less union representation, before once again calling for continued discussion.

Virginia Law Review 94:1 (March 2008)

ARTICLES

Information and the Market for Union Representation

by Matthew T. Bodie

Overcoming Procedural Boundaries

by Issachar Rosen-Zvi & Talia Fisher

ESSAY

From Langdell to Law and Economics: Two Conceptions of Stare Decisis in Contract Law and Theory

by Jody S. Kraus

NOTES

A Doctrine of Full Faith and Credit

by Brian Vines

Finding the Proper Balance: A Look at the Continuing Development of Campus Suicide Policies

by Karin McAnaney

ARTICLES

by Michael G. Collins

The Questionable Use of Custom in Intellectual Property

by Jennifer E. Rothman

ESSAYS

A New Model of Administrative Enforcement

by Robert J. Jackson, Jr. & David Rosenberg

The Case for For-Profit Charities

by Anup Malani & Eric A. Posner

NOTES

Better a Catholic Than a Communist

by James Zucker

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.

In Brief, the online companion to the Virginia Law Review, recently published the following two essays:

Professor George Cohen’s essay takes an unorthodox position regarding the DOJ’s organizational prosecution policy.

His essay “aim[s] . . . not so much to defend the DOJ policy as to deflate the dominant criticisms and to refocus the debate.” He argues that “[t]he critics [of the Holder, Thomson, and McNulty Memos] seek to lay at the feet of the DOJ policy problems whose primary causes lie elsewhere, in places the critics may be reluctant to have us look.”

Professor Cohen writes further:

“The vehemence of corporate opposition to the government’s waiver policy may be a matter of whose ox is being gored. It is one thing when the corporation on its own wants [...]]]>

In Brief, the online companion to the Virginia Law Review, recently published the following two essays:

Professor George Cohen’s essay takes an unorthodox position regarding the DOJ’s organizational prosecution policy.

His essay “aim[s] . . . not so much to defend the DOJ policy as to deflate the dominant criticisms and to refocus the debate.” He argues that “[t]he critics [of the Holder, Thomson, and McNulty Memos] seek to lay at the feet of the DOJ policy problems whose primary causes lie elsewhere, in places the critics may be reluctant to have us look.”

Professor Cohen writes further:

“The vehemence of corporate opposition to the government’s waiver policy may be a matter of whose ox is being gored. It is one thing when the corporation on its own wants to finger some low-level employee and label him a “bad egg” acting contrary to company policy so that the corporation can avoid prosecution. It is quite another when internal investigations turn up evidence of misbehavior at the highest levels and diffused throughout the organization. But that is what the recent corporate scandals are all about. The “coercion” that corporations claim to suffer may in fact be the discomfort that upper-level executives feel when they have to choose between waiving the privilege for the good of the company and saving their own necks. If so, then criticism that has been dressed up as a noble stand in defending a venerable privilege against government abuse is in reality just the corporate bar’s age-old attempt to protect upper-level corporate management rather than the entity client that corporate lawyers are supposed to serve. That would not be a surprise. The surprise is that people have been taken in for so long.”

Justin Weinstein-Tull’s case comment examines the Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Gonzales v. Carhart.

In Gonzales v. Carhart (Carhart II), the Court delivered a setback to a woman’s right to choose by affirming the constitutionality of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (“Ban Act”). In doing so, however, the Court enlarged the scope of congressional power. The Court deferred to Congress’s factual findings and allowed Congress to determine for itself that an exception for the health of the mother was unnecessary. This deference, although disheartening in Carhart II, is promising for future civil rights legislation.

In Brief’s next issue, scheduled for publication on August 6, will feature two essays on the subject of the legal response to recent mass catastrophes:

• Professor Kenneth S. Abraham (U.Va. Law) will publish an essay on the Hurricane Katrina insurance claims.
• Kenneth R. Feinberg will publish an essay comparing the approaches toward victim compensation that were taken following 9/11 and the Virginia Tech shootings.