Harvard Law Review, 121:6 (April 2008)

Vol. 121 · April 2008 · No. 6

Posted by Harvard Law Review at 02:30 PM

Harvard Law Review Forum, 121 (2008)

Harvard Law Review Forum, 121 (2008)

Governing Health
Jennifer Prah Ruger

Posted by Harvard Law Review at 02:32 PM

Harvard Law Review, 121:5 (March 2008)

Vol. 121 · March 2008 · No. 5

Posted by Harvard Law Review at 01:56 PM

Harvard Law Review, 121:4 (February 2008)

Vol. 121 · February 2008 · No. 4

Posted by Harvard Law Review at 10:22 AM

Harvard Law Review, 121:3 (January 2008)

Vol. 121 · January 2008 · No. 3

Posted by Harvard Law Review at 04:45 PM

Harvard Law Review, 121:2 (December 2007)

Vol. 121 · December 2007 · No. 2

IN MEMORIAM: CLARK BYSE
Justice Stephen G. Breyer       Elena Kagan       Andrew L. Kaufman
Todd D. Rakoff    Peter L. Strauss    Richard K. Willard
ARTICLES
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND INHERITANCE TAXATION	Anne L. Alstott
TIMING RULES AND LEGAL INSTITUTIONS	Jacob E. Gersen and Eric A. Posner
NOTES
The Case for Compulsory Voting in the United States
Oversight and Insight: Legislative Review of Agencies and Lessons from the States
RECENT CASES
North Carolina Supreme Court Finds No Jurisdiction over New York Trust. — Skinner v. Preferred Credit, 638 S.E.2d 203 (N.C. 2006), reh’g denied, 643 S.E.2d 591 (N.C. 2007).
New Jersey Supreme Court Holds that Restrictions in Common Interest Community Do Not Violate the State's Constitution. — Committee for a Better Twin Rivers v. Twin Rivers Homeowners’ Ass’n, 929 A.2d 1060 (N.J. 2007).
Ninth Circuit Removes Bar on Admission of a Defendant's Reading Material To Show Intent To Solicit a Minor. — United States v. Curtin, 489 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc).
Tenth Circuit Invalidates Oklahoma Statute Barring Recognition of Out-of-State Adoptions by Same-Sex Couples. — Finstuen v. Crutcher, 496 F.3d 1139 (10th Cir. 2007).
Ninth Circuit Holds that 18 U.S.C. § 924(C)(1)(A) Defines a Single Firearm Offense. — United States v. Arreola, 446 F.3d 926 (9th Cir.), superseded on denial of reh’g and reh’g en banc, 467 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 3002 (2007).
Texas Supreme Court Holds that Trial Court Lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction over Professional Negligence Claim Against Professional Counselor/Church Pastor. — Westbrook v. Penley, 231 S.W.3d 389 (Tex. 2007).
RECENT PUBLICATIONS Full Text

Posted by Harvard Law Review at 12:41 PM

Harvard Law Review Forum, 121 (2007)

Harvard Law Review Forum, 121 (2007)

Substitution Strategies
Jacob E. Gersen

Posted by Harvard Law Review at 01:25 AM

Harvard Law Review, 121:1 (November 2007)

Vol. 121 · November 2007 · No. 1

THE SUPREME COURT, 2006 TERM
FOREWORD: CONSTITUTIONS AND CAPABILITIES: "PERCEPTION" AGAINST LOFTY FORMALISM	Martha C. Nussbaum
COMMENT: PARENTS INVOLVED IN COMMUNITY SCHOOLS V. SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. I: VOLUNTARY RACIAL INTEGRATION IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
JUSTICE KENNEDY AND THE DOMAINS OF EQUAL PROTECTION	Heather K. Gerken
THE SUPREME COURT AND VOLUNTARY INTEGRATION	James E. Ryan
THE SEATTLE AND LOUISVILLE SCHOOL CASES: THERE IS NO OTHER WAY	J. Harvie Wilkinson III
LEADING CASES: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Constitutional Remedies Bivens Damages — Takings Clause Retaliation: Wilkie v. Robbins Criminal Law and Procedure Eighth Amendment — Death Penalty — Consideration of Mitigating Evidence: Abdul-Kabir v. Quarterman; Brewer v. Quarterman Eighth Amendment — Death Penalty — Execution of the Presently Incompetent: Panetti v. Quarterman Fourth Amendment — Reasonableness of Forcible Seizure: Scott v. Harris Sixth Amendment — Allocation of Factfinding in Sentencing: Cunningham v. California Sixth Amendment — Death Qualification Decisions: Uttecht v. Brown Sixth Amendment — Federal Sentencing Guidelines — Presumption of Reasonableness: Rita v. United States Sixth Amendment — Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Schriro v. Landrigan Due Process Abortion Rights — "Partial Birth" Abortion: Gonzales v. Carhart Punitive Damages: Philip Morris USA v. Williams Freedom of Speech and Expression Campaign Finance Regulation: FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. Student Speech: Morse v. Frederick FEDERAL JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE Civil Procedure Pleading Standards: Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly Jurisdictional Status of Rules Statutory Time Limits to Appeal: Bowles v. Russell Standing Taxpayer Standing — Establishment Clause Violations: Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc. FEDERAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act "Clearly Established Law" in Habeas Review: Carey v. Musladin Armed Career Criminal Act Definition of "Violent Felony": James v. United States Civil Rights Act, Title VII Statute of Limitations: Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Parental Rights: Winkelman v. Parma City School District Patent Obviousness: KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act "Strong Inference" Pleading Standard: Tellabs, Inc v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd. Review of Administrative Action Chevron Deference: Zuni Public School District No. 89 v. Department of Education Deference to Agency Interpretation of Conflicting Statutes: National Ass'n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife Limits on Agency Discretion: Massachusetts v. EPA Sherman Act Minimum Resale Price Maintenance: Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc.
THE STATISTICS
RECENT PUBLICATIONS Full Text

Posted by Harvard Law Review at 01:58 PM

Announcing the Law Review Table of Contents Project

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.

Posted by Daniel J. Solove at 12:10 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

Announcing the Law Review Forum Project

I am very pleased to announce a new project here at Concurring Opinions – the Law Review Forum Project. We will be hosting online forums for several law reviews. Increasingly, law reviews are creating online forums as companions to their regular law review issues. These forums contain very short response pieces, essays, debates, and other works that attempt to bridge the gap between regular legal scholarship and the blogosphere.

Journals seeking to create their own online forum face two daunting challenges. First, they must create and actively maintain a web presence. Second, they must find ways to attract readers, which is difficult in an age where so many blogs and other websites exist. A wide readership for a website depends upon having daily content. Law review forums produce content sporadically throughout the year at intervals that are not regular enough to attract a significant readership.

Therefore, we have invited a number of law reviews to participate in a partnership with our blog. Throughout the year, each law review will periodically post forum essays here at Concurring Opinions. We are not requiring an exclusive license, so participating law reviews can also cross-post at their own websites.

We see this as a mutually-beneficial arrangement. We can bring great content to our blog, and law reviews can reach our significant audience without the pressures of having to build and maintain an online readership or of having to produce content with regularity.

Law reviews currently with and without existing forums will be participating. Thus far, the following law reviews have agreed to participate:

* Harvard Law Review
* Virginia Law Review
* Michigan Law Review
* University of Pennsylvania Law Review
* Northwestern Law Review
* UCLA Law Review
* George Washington Law Review

In the near future, we hope to be expanding the list of participating law reviews.

Posted by Daniel J. Solove at 01:04 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack