Friday, April 27, 2007
Current Scholarship Round-Up for the 2007 Spring Submission Cycle
This post inaugurates what will hopefully be a continuing feature here at PrawfsBlawg: a round-up of current legal scholarship that has been placed during each submission cycle. Although this may be changing, law reviews generally accept articles for submission during two time periods: a spring cycle beginning in February and a fall cycle beginning in August. Although the articles have been submitted and accepted during the cycle, they may not come out for six months to a year from when they have been placed. SSRN and Bepress have filled in this gap to some extent, but at present there is no community forum for getting out the news of your new article and its (forthcoming) home.
In order to provide a community-wide source about placement news, I'll be compiling a list of articles that have been chosen for publication during this spring's submission cycle. If you wish to be included in this spring’s round-up, please send an email to this address with the following information:
- Author[s ]
- Law review or other journal placement
- Volume and year of publication (if available)
- Link to your article at SSRN, Bepress, or institutional web site (if available)
I’ll collect the information and post it in about a week, with updates to follow as further submissions come in.
UPDATE: Just to clarify, I am looking only for articles, rather than essays, symposia pieces, or book reviews. If there is interest, we could also do round-ups for these separate categories. Let me know your thoughts. And thanks to all of you who have already submitted news of your placements.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Click the link at the bottom of this post to listen to this week's installment of the Thursday Interview. This week's interview is with Bradford Clark of George Washington University Law School about his most recent paper, Erie's Constitutional Source. Brad was kind enough to talk with us about his article and the constitutional rationale of the Erie decision. Thanks to Brad for a great interview.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Ryan Zempel, Managing Editor of the Institute for Legal Reform ("ILR"), gave us a heads-up on the release of the 2007 US Chamber of Commerce Lawsuit Climate Rankings. The study explores "how reasonable and balanced the tort liability system is perceived to be by U.S. business." The rankings are based on interviews with a "nationally representative sample of in-house general counsel or other senior corporate litigators" of companies with annual revenues of at least $100 million.
According to these lawyers, my state (Texas) is 44th on the list, while Delaware has the best climate in the country and West Virginia has the worst. Being last on the list has consequences. The ILR is using television ads in West Virginia to "spotlight legislators for backing trial lawyers over ordinary people."
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
In Waste Services, Inc. v. Waste Management Inc., 2007 WL 1174116 (M.D.Fla 2007), U.S. Magistrate Judge Baker (whose report was adopted by Judge Conway) referenced the new federal rules on electronic-discovery as support for the notion that terms like "paper" in 28 U.S.C. section 1920 ought to be read broadly to include electronically stored information. I mention the opinion here because I think Magistrate Baker summarizes nicely technology's impact on modern litigation.
Although this particular statute has yet to be amended to reflect the realities of the digital age, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have recently undergone a major revision in this area, and issues of electronic discovery and evidence are being regularly presented to federal courts nationwide. Indeed, technology has led to major changes in the construction and design of courthouses themselves, with courtrooms being fitted with monitors and hardware to accommodate electronic presentation of evidence. It does not escape the Court's attention that the entire docket of this case has been electronically filed, and the briefs are nothing more than PDF files, existing so far as the Court is concerned, only in cyberspace.
Lest you think Magistrate Baker is as obsessed with electronic discovery as I have apparently become, he also cites the statutes of Gloucester and Henry VIII.
Monday, April 23, 2007
At the National Law Journal, Michael P. Shea writes about the Philip Morris case, which the Supreme Court will hear this Wednesday. The essay begins:
What does cigarette maker Philip Morris USA Inc. have in common with a 19th century customs officer who is sued by New England ship owners to prevent him from enforcing an embargo on trade with England during the War of 1812? ... If you are having trouble answering that question, you are not alone.
Howard Bashman predicts a 9-0 reversal. --RR