Search for: "L.J.-I."
Results 381 - 400
of 1,223
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Nov 2017, 11:49 am
(Jed Glickstein, After Midnight: The Circuit Judges and the Repeal of the Judiciary Act of 1801, 24 Yale L.J. [read post]
10 Nov 2017, 2:47 pm
Posner, The Bluebook Blues, 120 Yale L.J. 850 (2011). [read post]
9 Nov 2017, 7:41 pm
Reich, The New Property, 73 YALE L.J. 733 (1964). [4] 397 U. [read post]
30 Oct 2017, 11:41 am
L.J. 310 (2016). [read post]
23 Oct 2017, 2:00 pm
L.J. 773 (2017). [read post]
20 Oct 2017, 8:58 am
Mary’s L.J. 399 (1979) at 400, n. 9.) [read post]
3 Oct 2017, 6:00 am
Beauchamp posted a new essay to SSRN last week that caught my eye, and I thought I would share it here. [read post]
28 Sep 2017, 3:30 am
Birk, Article III Judicial Power, the Adverse-Party Requirement, and Non-Contentious Jurisdiction, 124 Yale L.J. 1346 (2015). [read post]
26 Sep 2017, 5:39 am
L.J. 1427 (2010). [read post]
15 Sep 2017, 5:57 pm
I. [read post]
11 Sep 2017, 12:31 pm
L.J. 227 (2017). [read post]
11 Sep 2017, 7:24 am
Whatever the outcome of these issues on the national level, it seems clear that state reformers have already far outpaced their federal counterparts. [1] Antonin Scalia, Judicial Deference to Administrative Interpretations of Law, 1989 Duke L.J. 511, 511 (1989). [2] ABKA Ltd. [read post]
8 Aug 2017, 4:58 pm
L.J. 413 (2017). 4. [read post]
7 Aug 2017, 4:00 am
I don’t claim any special expertise in this topic — I’m just curious about it. [read post]
10 Jul 2017, 8:02 am
., Will I Pass the Bar Exam? [read post]
2 Jul 2017, 2:22 pm
Bibliography Louis Kaplow, Rules versus Standards: An Economic Analysis, 42 Duke L.J. 557 (1992). [read post]
1 Jul 2017, 7:24 pm
October 5, 2015) (Mark I. [read post]
30 Jun 2017, 5:04 pm
ROPER: I’d cut down every law in England to do that! [read post]
[Eugene Volokh] Saikrishna Prakash (University of Virginia School of Law) joining us as a co-blogger
27 Jun 2017, 3:42 pm
I am very much looking forward to his posts! [read post]
26 Jun 2017, 10:48 am
Although some view Turner as not breaking new doctrinal ground, I think it does tee up one interesting legal question. [read post]