Date of Publication:
Kristen David Adams and Candace Zierdt, United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, 2015 Bus. L. Today 1 (2015)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Anne E. Mullins, Team-Based Learning: Innovative Pedagogy in Legal Writing, 49 U.S.F.L. Rev. 53 (2015)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Andrew D. Appleby and Leah Robinson, A Complete Guide to New York’s New Manufacturer Incentives, Tax Analysts: State Tax Notes (2015)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Ciara Torres-Spelliscy et al., Compliance Costs and Disclosure Requirement Mandates: Some Evidence, 27 Research in Accounting Regulation 83 (2015)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Robyn Powell, Federal Agencies Say State Cannot Discriminate Against Parents with Disabilities, 34 Child Law Practice 46 (2015)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
This article provides an overview of the DOJ/HHS findings and their anticipated wide-ranging impact on parents with disabilities in the child welfare system. It briefly discusses the investigation and findings, and the expected impact of the Departments’ involvement as it relates to parents with disabilities, and provides information on how to file similar complaints.
Date of Publication:
Joseph F. Morrissey, Surrogacy: The Process, the Law, and the Contracts, 51 Willamette L. Rev. 459 (2015)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Jaclyn Lopez, Biodiversity on the Brink: The Role of Assisted Migration in managing Endangered Species Threatened with Rising Seas, 39 Harvard Envtl. L. Review 157 (2015)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Jaclyn Lopez, Can’t We Just All Get Along: Reconciling Pesticide Use and Species Protection, 33 Virginia Envtl. L. Journal 184 (2015)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Royal C. Gardner et al., State of the World’s Wetlands and Their Services to People: A Compilation of Recent Analyses, (Ramsar Sci. & Technical Briefing Note no. 7, Ramsar Convention Secretariat) (2015)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Ramsar Resolution XI.17 requested the Convention’s Scientific and Technical Review Panel to report on the state of the world’s wetlands and their services to people. As a contribution to this task, this Briefing Note summarizes and highlights for Contracting Parties and other decision makers key points from select scientific reports and articles published in 2013 and 2014. In particular, the Briefing Note discusses wetland status and trends, the loss of wetland ecosystem services and future steps for data collection and assessment. The negative trends shown by recent studies should serve as a call to Contracting Parties to avoid further wetland loss and degradation and to strengthen wetland assessment, monitoring and restoration.
Date of Publication:
Jason Bent, P-Values, Priors, and Procedure in Antidiscrimination Law, 63 Buff. L. Rev. 85– (2015)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
This paper is the second in a series of two papers addressing the influence of priors in antidiscrimination law. The first paper, Hidden Priors, argued that Bayesian probability theory could harmonize two divergent strands of scholarship on the systemic disparate treatment theory of discrimination. This Bayesian approach challenges the conventional use of statistical evidence in systemic discrimination cases. Critically, the Bayesian approach acknowledges the operation of prior information about the likelihood of unlawful discrimination when evaluating statistical evidence. While a handful of scholars have contemplated a transition to a Bayesian antidiscrimination law, there has been no scholarly treatment of the second-order questions raised by the recognition of Bayesian priors. These second-order questions were highlighted at the conclusion of Hidden Priors. They include hard, but not intractable, questions such as: Whose priors matter? How should priors be incorporated into civil litigation procedures? And, what are legitimate sources of priors? The lack of attention to these questions may explain the stubborn refusal of courts, litigants, and employment law scholars to acknowledge the role of priors in systemic discrimination cases. This second article in the series is meant to spur a healthy scholarly discussion of the second-order questions, even if it cannot provide definitive answers to them. This article argues that the procedural devices of our civil litigation system – though imperfect – are actually well-suited to properly allocate responsibility among legislatures, appellate judges, trial judges, and fact-finders for estimating the prior likelihood of discrimination. This article demonstrates that, once acknowledged, priors can be transparently managed by thoughtful implementation of these procedural devices.