The First Sentence of Your Book

Dave Hoffman

Dave Hoffman is the Murray Shusterman Professor of Transactional and Business Law at Temple Law School. He specializes in law and psychology, contracts, and quantitative analysis of civil procedure. He currently teaches contracts, civil procedure, corporations, and law and economics.

You may also like...

15 Responses

  1. Logan Roise says:

    Legal theory is deep like the ocean.

  2. Tim Zinnecker says:

    Their eyes met just outside the crowded elevator bank that would ascend to the interview suite on the 7th floor at the Marriott Wardman Park Tower Hotel, and for what seemed like an eternity their heartbeats raced intertwined at a feverish pitch as they both eagerly relished the singular opportunity to discuss the law school’s yearning desire to fill a long-overdue slot to teach Secured Transactions.

  3. Toby Dorsey says:

    I. Summary of Argument

  4. Doug B. says:

    Please read the next sentence.

  5. Gerard Magliocca says:

    Great lawyers are all alike; every bad lawyer is bad in his or her own way.

  6. Orin Kerr says:

    This book basically agrees with the common wisdom about a very boring area of law.

  7. Ken Rhodes says:

    If you have picked up this book by chance, rather than by design, and if you are now reading this first page in order to find out what is in the rest of the book, then you might as well resign yourself to a sad fact of serious books, whether in the law or in particle physics or in cooking, or in any other subject where serious authors write for serious students, said fact being that the only way you will know what is in the book is to read the book.

  8. Marc DeGirolami says:


    I can’t resist Orin’s call to arms:

    This book says something something surprising and novel and deeply relevant to things that people care about and which can change lots of peoples’ lives…for the better, if only they listened.

  9. dave hoffman says:

    Lots of good entries so far. In my view, Tim Z’s is a nose ahead in the race to the bottom. Orin: too much irony, not enough pulp.

  10. Bob Mabry says:

    If you expect this book to explain the carrying-a-weapon statute, you will be disappointed. Judge Who-Si-Goo said it is inexplicable, so this book is, pace Goedel, about WHY this statute cannot be explained.

  11. Dissent says:

    In contrast to a blogosphere that is vibrant with discussions of privacy law, privacy law itself has moved forward at a soporific pace, much like when my narcoleptic friend ran out of her Ritalin prescription.

  12. Joseph Slater says:

    If, as Kermit Hall once opined, law is but a mirror of society, then this study of [insert field here] will reveal not just the warts of society, but also its zits, vericose veins, and bleeding gums, and indeed will take the analysis up the very nostrils of civil and legal discourse.

  13. A.J. Sutter says:

    Just as Darwin is said to have invented his influential, albeit contested, theory of evolution from the comparison of beaks of finches (of course, it’s still just a theory), and the Mughal Sultan Akbar (1556-1605) was said to have listened (since he himself was illiterate, according to some sources) to his assistants discourse on the comparative merits of the various religions within his empire, as well as devotees of the various religions themselves, I hope that this comparative study of name-change amendment practice under the corporations statutes of the American states 1850-1914, beginning with this Vol. 1, relating to the New England States, will (thanks to kind support from the Limburger State University Corporate Law InCITE Project) impart to the reader no less fascination and insight, albeit possibly in a more modest and statistically rigorous way.

  14. nice book, all things of this book is superb.

  15. dave hoffman says:

    It’s tough to choose between the early front-runner (Tim) the late, brilliant, entrant A.J., and the perfectly executed turing-spam comment by credit score calculator. What do you folks think?