Author: Vanderbilt Law Review

0

Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 62, Number 3 (April 2009)

Vand-L-Rev-Logo.jpg

Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 62, Number 3 (April 2009)

ARTICLES

Tomer Broude & Doron Teichman, Outsourcing and Insourcing Crime: The Political Economy of Globalized Criminal Activity, 62 Vand. L. Rev. 795 (2009).

Terry A. Maroney, Emotional Common Sense as Constitutional Law, 62 Vand. L. Rev. 851 (2009).

Caren Myers Morrison, Privacy, Accountability, and the Cooperating Defendant: Towards a New Role for Internet Access to Court Records, 62 Vand. L. Rev. 921 (2009).

NOTES

Lesley R. Attkisson, Putting a Stop to Sprawl: State Intervention as a Tool for Growth Management, 62 Vand. L. Rev. 979 (2009).

Lauren Gaffney, The Circle of Assent: How “Agreement” Can Save Mandatory Arbitration in Long-Term Care Contracts, 62 Vand. L. Rev. 1017 (2009).

Georgia Lee Sims, The Criminalization of Mental Illness: How Theoretical Failures Create Real Problems in the Criminal Justice System, 62 Vand. L. Rev. 1053 (2009).

Interested in writing a response to one of these articles? Check out En Banc to find out how.

0

Vanderbilt Law Review En Banc

Vanderbilt-LR-Forum-Logo1.gif

Vanderbilt Law Review En Banc

Relative Difference and the Dean Method: A Comment on “Getting the Math Right”

by Mark Bell

This Response critiques a recent Article in the Vanderbilt Law Review, Getting the Math Right: Why California Has Too Many Seats in the House of Representatives, by Professor Paul H. Edelman, on the doctrine of “one person one vote” as applied to congressional apportionment. Professor Edelman discusses the background of “one person one vote” in the congressional apportionment context and asserts that because of a mathematical flaw, the Supreme Court in U.S. Department of Commerce v. Montana incorrectly permitted a method of congressional apportionment that is not in accordance with “one person one vote.” Professor Edelman’s mathematical assertion is fundamentally correct; the Court did not use the correct denominator in its calculations. However, this Response argues that even if the Court had been presented with the correct mathematical calculations, the Court should not have been persuaded. This Response also argues that there should be a distinction between relative deviation—used in districting—and relative difference—used in apportionment—and proposes a method for calculating relative difference that differs from the ones that Professor Edelman and the Court proposed.

Interested in writing a response for Vanderbilt Law Review En Banc? Check out our website to find out how.

0

Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 62, Number 2 (March 2009)

Vand-L-Rev-Logo.jpg

Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 62, Number 2 (March 2009)

2009 Symposium on Neglected Supreme Court Justices

James W. Ely, Jr. & Mark E. Brandon, Introduction: The Rankings Game, 62 Vand. L. Rev. 311 (2009).

G. Edward White, Neglected Justices: Discounting for History, 62 Vand. L. Rev. 319 (2009).

Stephen B. Presser, Samuel Chase: In Defense of the Rule of Law and Against the Jeffersonians, 62 Vand. L. Rev. 349 (2009).

William R. Casto, There Were Great Men Before Agamemnon, 62 Vand. L. Rev. 371 (2009).

Mark R. Killenbeck, William Johnson, the Dog that Did Not Bark?, 62 Vand. L. Rev. 407 (2009).

Herbert A. Johnson, Bushrod Washington, 62 Vand. L. Rev. 447 (2009).

Austin Allen, Jacksonian Jurisprudence and the Obscurity of Justice John Catron, 62 Vand. L. Rev. 491 (2009).

Paul Finkelman, John McLean: Moderate Abolitionist and Supreme Court Politician, 62 Vand. L. Rev. 519 (2009).

J. Gordon Hylton, The Perils of Popularity: David Josiah Brewer and the Politics of Judicial Reputation, 62 Vand. L. Rev. 567 (2009).

James W. Ely, Jr., Rufus W. Peckham and Economic Liberty, 62 Vand. L. Rev. 591 (2009).

Samuel R. Olken, Justice Sutherland Reconsidered, 62 Vand. L. Rev. 639 (2009).

David R. Stras, Pierce Butler: A Supreme Technician, 62 Vand. L. Rev. 695 (2009).

Linda C. Gugin, Sherman Minton: Restraint Against a Tide of Activism, 62 Vand. L. Rev. 757 (2009).

*Audio recordings from the Conference presentations that contributed to this Symposium issue are available on our website.

Interested in writing a response to one of these articles? Check out En Banc to find out how.

0

Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 62, Number 1 (January 2009)

Vand-L-Rev-Logo.jpg

Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 62, Number 1 (January 2009)

ARTICLES

Richard A. Nagareda, Aggregate Litigation Across the Atlantic and the Future of American Exceptionalism, 62 Vand. L. Rev. 1 (2009).

Rigel C. Oliveri, Between a Rock and a Hard Place: Landlords, Latinos, Anti-Illegal Immigrant Ordinances, and Housing Discrimination, 62 Vand. L. Rev. 55 (2009).

Robert B. Thompson & Paul H. Edelman, Corporate Voting, 62 Vand. L. Rev. 129 (2009).

ESSAY

Samuel Issacharoff & Geoffrey P. Miller, Will Aggregate Litigation Come to Europe?, 62 Vand. L. Rev. 179 (2009).

NOTES

Matthew Hardwick Blumenstein, RICO Overreach: How the Federal Government’s Escalating Offensive Against Gangs Has Run Afoul of the Constitution, 62 Vand. L. Rev. 211 (2009).

Erin M. Carter, Pragmatic Selective Waiver: Re-Aligning Corporate Executives’ Personal Interests with Those of the Corporation Amidst Government Investigations, 62 Vand. L. Rev. 239 (2009).

Robert John Grubb II, Attorneys, Accountants, and Bankers, Oh My! Primary Liability for Secondary Actors in the Wake of Stoneridge, 62 Vand. L. Rev. 275 (2009).

Interested in writing a response to one of these articles? Check out our website to find out how.

0

Vanderbilt Law Review En Banc

Vanderbilt-LR-Forum-Logo1.gif

Vanderbilt Law Review En Banc

Wrongs Without Recourse: A Comment on Jason Solomon’s Judging Plaintiffs

by Professor John C.P. Goldberg

November 22, 2008

Jason Solomon’s very interesting Article Judging Plaintiffs argues that neither efficient-deterrence theories nor corrective justice theories adequately explain the existence of rules that bar or limit recovery by a tort victim on the ground that she failed to take certain pre-tort steps to protect herself from harm, or failed to take certain post-tort steps in response to the harm. The vitality of these “judging plaintiffs” doctrines, he maintains, attests to the superiority of an alternative theory of tort known as civil recourse theory. According to Solomon, recourse theory treats tort law as one component of a liberal political order and thus explains these doctrines in terms of a liberal principle calling for state nonintervention where it was or is unnecessary. In this Response, I situate Judging Plaintiffs within current tort theory debates, describe briefly its major claims, and discuss some of the doctrinal and theoretical strengths and weaknesses of the position it stakes out.

Interested in writing a response for En Banc? Check out our website to find out how.

3

Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 61, Number 6 (November 2008)

Vand-L-Rev-Logo.jpg

Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 61, Number 6 (November 2008)

ARTICLES

Nestor M. Davidson, Standardization and Pluralism in Property Law, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 1597 (2008).

Lumen N. Mulligan, A Unified Theory of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Jurisdiction, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 1667 (2008).

Jonathan Remy Nash & Rafael I. Pardo, An Empirical Investigation into Appellate Structure and the Perceived Quality of Appellate Review, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 1745 (2008).

ESSAY

Tracy E. George & Chris Guthrie, “The Threes”: Re-Imagining Supreme Court Decisionmaking, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 1825 (2008).

NOTES

John A. Greer, If the Shoe Fits: Reconciling the International Shoe Minimum Contacts Test with the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 1861 (2008).

Christopher Brett Jaeger, “Does that Sound Familiar?”: Creators’ Liability for Unconscious Copyright Infringement, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 1903 (2008).

Andrew Smith, Brady Obligations, Criminal Sanctions, and Solutions in a New Era of Scrutiny, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 1935 (2008).

Interested in writing a response to one of these articles? Check out our website to find out how.

0

Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 61, Number 5 (October 2008)

Vand-L-Rev-Logo.jpg

Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 61, Number 5 (October 2008)

ARTICLES

Scott Dodson, A Darwinist View of the Living Constitution, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 1319 (2008).

Frances H. Foster, Individualized Justice in Disputes over Dead Bodies, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 1351 (2008).

Darian M. Ibrahim, The (Not So) Puzzling Behavior of Angel Investors, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 1405 (2008).

Austen L. Parrish, The Effects Test: Extraterritoriality’s Fifth Business, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 1455 (2008).

NOTES

John Haubenreich, The iPhone and the DMCA: Locking the Hands of Consumers, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 1507 (2008).

Tory H. Lewis, Managing Manure: Using Good Neighbor Agreements to Regulate Pollution from Agricultural Production, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 1555 (2008).

0

Vanderbilt Law Review En Banc

Vanderbilt-LR-Forum-Logo1.gif

Vanderbilt Law Review is proud to announce the launch of its online companion, En Banc. In its first publication, En Banc presents a Response by Professor Randall S. Thomas to an Article by Professors Stephen Choi and Jill Fisch.

Public Pension Funds as Shareholder Activists: A Comment on Choi and Fisch

by Professor Randall S. Thomas

October 6, 2008

This Response critiques a recent Article on public pension fund shareholder activism by Stephen Choi and Jill Fisch. Choi and Fisch use the results of a survey of forty public pension funds as a basis for an empirical and normative analysis of public pension fund activism. Choi and Fisch’s survey evidence gives us some tantalizing glimpses inside the black box of public pension fund activism. At the end of the day though, we are still left with significant questions. This Response raises some of these questions, critiquing the representativeness of Choi and Fisch’s sample, their interpretation of the survey results on litigation and non-litigation activism, and the “right” place for public pension funds in the spectrum of shareholder activists.

0

Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 61, Number 4 (May 2008)

Vand-LR-logo.jpg

Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 61, Number 4 (May 2008)

ARTICLES

Scott D. Gerber, The Court, the Constitution, and the History of Ideas, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 1067 (2008).

James R. Repetti, Democracy and Opportunity: A New Paradigm in Tax Equity, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 1129 (2008).

Peter B. Rutledge, Arbitration and Article III, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 1189 (2008).

NOTES

Gabriel Jacob Fleet, What’s in a Song? Copyright’s Unfair Treatment of Record Producers and Side Musicians, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 1235 (2008).

Linda Katherine Leibfarth, Giving the Terminally Ill Their Due (Process): A Case for Expanded Access to Experimental Drugs Through the Political Process, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 1281 (2008).

0

Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 61, Number 3 (April 2008)

Vand-LR-logo.jpg

Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 61, Number 3 (April 2008)

ARTICLES

Michael J. Gerhardt, Non-Judicial Precedent, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 713 (2008).

Clare Huntington, The Constitutional Dimension of Immigration Federalism, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 787 (2008).

Noah D. Zatz, Working at the Boundaries of Markets: Prison Labor and the Economic Dimension of Employment Relationships, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 857 (2008).

NOTES

Christyne E. Ferris, The Search for Due Process in Civil Commitment Hearings: How Procedural Realities Have Altered Substantive Standards, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 959 (2008).

Russell Fraker, Reformulating Outrage: A Critical Analysis of the Problematic Tort of IIED, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 983 (2008).

Nicholas Nugent, Toward a RFRA That Works, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 1027 (2008).