Site Meter

Category: Law Rev (Virginia)

0

Virginia Law Review 95:6 (October 2009)

VOLUME 95      OCTOBER 2009     ISSUE 6

Virginia Law Review 95:6 (October 2009)


ARTICLES

National Security Fact Deference

Robert M. Chesney

Intent to Contract

Gregory Klass

 ESSAY

Originality

Gideon Parchomovsky  & Alex Stein

NOTE

Separate, But Equal? Virginia’s “Independent” Cities and the Purported Virtues of Voluntary Interlocal Agreements

David K. Roberts

0

Virginia Law Review 95:5 (September 2009)

VOLUME 95      SEPTEMBER 2009     ISSUE 5

Virginia Law Review 95:5 (September 2009)

ARTICLES

Standing for the Public: A Lost History

M. Elizabeth Magill

Full Faith and Credit in the Early Congress Stephen E. Sachs

NOTES

Is O Centro Really A Sign of Hope for RFRA Claimants?

Matt Nicholson

The Hapless Ecosystem: A Federalist Argument in Favor of an Ecosystem Approach to the Endangered Species Act Scott Schwartz
0

Virginia Law Review 95:4 (June 2009): The SEC in a Time of Discontinuity

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 

0

Virginia Law Review 95:3 (May 2009)

VOLUME 95      MAY 2009     ISSUE 3

rotunda3.gif

Virginia Law Review 95:3 (May 2009)

ESSAY

The Common Law Prohibition on Party Testimony and the Development of Tort Liability

Kenneth S. Abraham

 ARTICLE

Managers, Shareholders, and the Corporate Double Tax

Michael Doran

 ESSAYS

Chevron Has Only One Step

Matthew C. Stephenson and Adrian Vermeule

Chevron’s Two Steps Kenneth A. Bamberger and Peter L. Strauss

NOTE

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

Rebecca Schoff 

2

Virginia Law Review 95:2 (April 2009)

VOLUME 95      APRIL 2009     ISSUE 2

rotunda3.gif

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 

Marriage & Redemption: Mormon Polygamy in the Congressional Imagination, 1862-1887 Kelly Elizabeth Phipps
0

Virginia Law Review 95:1 (March 2009)

VOLUME 95      MARCH 2009     ISSUE 1

rotunda3.gif

Virginia Law Review 95:1 (March 2009)

ARTICLES

Invalid Forensic Science Testimony and Wrongful Convictions

Brandon L. Garrett and Peter J. Neufeld

The Space Between Markets and Hierarchies George S. Geis

 

NOTES

A Fourth Amendment Metamorphosis: How the Fourth Amendment Remedies and Regulations Facilitated the Expansion of the Threshold Inquiry

Elizabeth Canter

Consumerism and Information Privacy: How Upton Sinclair Might Once Again Protect Us From Ourselves (And Why We Should Let Him) Benjamin Sachs
0

Virginia Law Review In Brief

VA-L-Rev-InBrief.jpg

In Brief, the online companion to the Virginia Law Review, recently published a discussion centered around Professor Stephen F. Smith’s article The Supreme Court and the Politics of Death, published in the April 2008 Issue of the Virginia Law Review:

Professor Darryl K. Brown’s response, The Multifarious Politics of Capital Punishment: A Response to Smith , suggests “that the politics of death are not quite as bleak as Smith believes them to be,” and highlights “some significant developments in the moderation of capital punishment policy achieved through the democratic process” before closing with some thoughts regarding “the significance of the Court’s recent forays into capital punishment regulation.”

In Get in the Game or Get out of the Way: Fixing the Politics of Death, Professor Adam M. Gershowitz agrees with Professor Smith that “the Court has politicized the death penalty and in doing so inadvertently stymied reform efforts,” but takes a less optimistic view of the Court’s latest jurisprudence, instaed arguing, “If the Court desires to eliminate the arbitrariness of the death penalty, it needs to either take a major step forward or get out of the way so that the political actors can take responsibility.”

Finally, in What’s Wrong with Democracy? A Critique of “The Supreme Court and the Politics of Death”, Professor Paul G. Cassell and District Attorney Joshua K. Marquis take issue with the need for judicial reform, arguing that “[c]apital punishment is a proper punishment in the American criminal justice system, whose popular support should not mark it for judicial undermining, but rather judicial support,” and that “Professor Smith should be more trusting in the outcome of democratic processes.”

0

Virginia Law Review 94:5 (September 2008)

VOLUME 94      SEPTEMBER 2008     ISSUE 5

rotunda3.gif

Virginia Law Review 94:5 (September 2008)

ARTICLE

NOTES

BOOK REVIEW

1

Virginia Law Review In Brief

VA-L-Rev-InBrief.jpg

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.”

0

Virginia Law Review In Brief

VA-L-Rev-InBrief.jpg

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.