Teaching Rape Under Cover Article
Date of Publication:
Recommended Citation
Susan D. Rozelle, Teaching Rape Under Cover, 10 Ohio St. J. Crim. L. 633 (2013)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Articles
Carrots and Sticks from President Obama’s Solyndra and Beyond Article
Date of Publication:
Recommended Citation
Paul Boudreaux, Carrots and Sticks from President Obama’s Solyndra and Beyond, 4 Wash. & Lee J. Energy, Climate, & Env't. 1 (2013)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Remedial Consilience Article
Date of Publication:
Recommended Citation
Marco Jimenez, Remedial Consilience, 62 Emory L.J. 1309 (2013)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
This Article provides a new way of organizing and thinking about what is perhaps the most important, useful, and ubiquitous – yet misunderstood, neglected, and underdeveloped – area in all of law: remedies. Even though remedial issues are present in every case, too little theoretical attention has been paid to them, leaving a wide array of remedial doctrines – ranging from injunctions to declaratory decrees, punitive damages to contempt, and unjust enrichment to specific performance – in search of a unifying theory.
This Article is the first to offer such a theory. Specifically, I argue that the broad array of seemingly distinctive remedies, operating over diverse subject matter areas, can be organized and justified by way of four distinct but related remedial principles: the principles of restoration, retribution, coercion, and protection. Each principle focuses on either the victim or the wrongdoer from a distinct (ex ante or ex post) temporal perspective. These principles, in turn, allow one to organize and unify a large swath of seemingly unique and unrelated remedies under a broad conceptual umbrella.
More importantly, however, by showing that all remedies are little more than specific instantiations of general remedial principles, it is my hope that this Article – by identifying and exploring the relationship between and among these principles – can help judges, practitioners, and policy makers think more clearly about what they are doing, as a descriptive matter, and ought to be doing, as a normative matter, when awarding and justifying a remedy – a matter they must consider no less frequently than in every single case.
Judicial Deference to Congress and the Separation of Powers Article
Date of Publication:
Recommended Citation
Louis J. Virelli, Judicial Deference to Congress and the Separation of Powers, 98 Iowa L. Rev. Bulletin 28 (2013)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Science, Politics, and Administrative Legitimacy Article
Date of Publication:
Recommended Citation
Louis J. Virelli, Science, Politics, and Administrative Legitimacy, 78 Mo. L. Rev. 511 (2013)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Science and politics often interact successfully in administrative law. Potential problems arise, however, when agencies make “counter-scientific” policy decisions — decisions that overlook otherwise uncontroverted scientific evidence in favor of political rationales. This short essay draws new attention to these counter-scientific policy determinations by asking if and under what circumstances they may be considered illegitimate in a constitutional democracy. More specifically, it asks how counter-scientific decisions impact three of the animating principles of administrative legitimacy — agency expertise, accountability and transparency, and efficiency — and identifies some additional variables that are useful to that analysis. Part II offers recent examples of three different forms of counter-scientific policy decisions. Part III outlines the three principles of legitimacy to be applied to those decisions. Part IV then evaluates counter-scientific policy decisions in light of each of those three principles, arguing that variables such as the scope of a particular agency’s expertise, the nature of that agency and its role in government, and the agency’s own claims as to how it is exercising its policymaking authority are critical to understanding the democratic viability of counter-scientific policy decisions. This insight is not only valuable in its own right, but also as a useful starting point in a more rigorous evaluation of counter-scientific agency decisions that could have powerful implications for policymaking as well as for administrative legitimacy in general.
Reinvigorating U.S. Copyright Law with Attribution: How Courts Can Help Define the Fair Use Exception by Considering the Economic Aspects of Attribution Article
Date of Publication:
Recommended Citation
Catherine J. Cameron, Reinvigorating U.S. Copyright Law with Attribution: How Courts Can Help Define the Fair Use Exception by Considering the Economic Aspects of Attribution, 2 Berkeley J. Ent. & Sports L. 130 (2013)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
When Justices (Subconsciously) Attack: The Theory of Argumentative Threat and the Supreme Article
Date of Publication:
Recommended Citation
Lance Long and William F. Christensen, When Justices (Subconsciously) Attack: The Theory of Argumentative Threat and the Supreme, 91 Or. L. Rev. 933 (2013)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
This paper is the third and final article in a series that discusses research performed over the past four years regarding the effect of certain language usages in appellate briefs and opinions. The first two articles, "Does the Readability of Your Brief Affect Your Chance of Winning on Appeal?" and “Clearly Using Intensifiers is Very Bad — Or Is It?”, were published in the Journal of Appellate Practice & Process and The Idaho Law Review, respectively. This article (in the Oregon Law Review), proposes a theory of "argumentative threat" which hypothesizes that when faced with an argument that a legal writer believes — or knows — she is likely to lose, the writer will tend to write in a style that uses more intensifiers. There is also some evidence (not statistically significant) that longer sentences and longer words may be associated with a defensive style of writing. The article illustrates its point by using recent majority and dissenting opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court. The article also suggests that the “conservative” Justices use more intensifiers in their dissenting opinions than their “liberal” counterparts.
Time for Tenure for SSAOs Article
Date of Publication:
Recommended Citation
Peter Lake, Time for Tenure for SSAOs, NASPA's Leadership Exchange (2013)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Put Your Library on the Map, Part 1: How to Put Your Library Floor Plan into Google Maps Floor Plans Article
Date of Publication:
Recommended Citation
Ashley Krenelka and Robert Brammer, Put Your Library on the Map, Part 1: How to Put Your Library Floor Plan into Google Maps Floor Plans, AALL Spectrum Online (2012)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
2012
Incorporating Environmental Law into First-Year Research and Writing Article
Date of Publication:
Recommended Citation
Royal C. Gardner, Incorporating Environmental Law into First-Year Research and Writing, 42 Envtl. L. Reporter News & Analysis 10941 (2012)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.