Thursday, June 3, 2010

Hot Off The Presses: Recent Articles of Interest

With a hat tip to the Current Index of Legal Periodicals, here are some recent articles that may be of interest:

Rory Bahadur, Electronic discovery, informational privacy, Facebook and utopian civil justice, 79 Miss. L.J. 317 (2009)

Steven C. Bennett & Jeremy Cloud, Coping with metadata: ten key steps, 61 Mercer L. Rev. 471 (2010)

David S. Coale, Rebecca L. Visosky & Diana K. Cochrane, Contractual waiver of the right to remove to federal court: how policy judgments guide contract interpretation, 29 Rev. Litig. 327 (2010)

David S. Cohen, The precedent-based voting paradox, 90 B.U. L. Rev. 183 (2010)

Philip J. Favro, Sea change or status quo: has the 37(e) Safe Harbor advanced best practices for records management? 11 Minn. J. L. Sci. & Tech. 317 (2010)

Johanna Kalb, Dynamic federalism in human rights treaty implementation, 84 Tul. L. Rev. 1025 (2010)

David Marcus, The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and legal realism as a jurisprudence of law reform, 44 Ga. L. Rev. 433 (2010)

Douglas G. Smith, Preemption after Wyeth v. Levine, 70 Ohio St. L.J. 1435 (2009)

Jeffrey W. Stempel, Completing Caperton and clarifying common sense through using the right standard for constitutional judicial recusal, 29 Rev. Litig. 249 (2010)

Lucas Watkins, How states can protect their policies in federal class actions, 32 Campbell L. Rev. 285 (2010)

Carol L. Zeiner, When Kelo met Twombly-Iqbal: implications for pretext challenges to eminent domain, 46 Willamette L. Rev. 201 (2009)

Symposium: Twenty-Five Years After Filartiga v. Pena-Irala: Exploring Tension Between Accountability and Foreign Policy. Articles by Beth Stephens, William R. Casto, Laura A. Dickinson, Richard Henry Seamon, Derek Baxter and Ari Afilalo; comments by Amy Apollo and Juli Schwartz, 37 Rutgers L.J. 623-876

Guyon, Knight, Note, The CAFA mass action numerosity requirement: three problems with counting to 100, 78 Fordham L. Rev. 1875 (2010)

Lexia B. Krown, Note, Clarity as the last resort? Why Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4 should and could stipulate which judgments are "final", 70 Ohio St. L.J. 1481 (2009)

Amy Pomerantz Nickerson, Comment, Coercive discovery and the First Amendment: towards a heightened discoverability standard, 57 UCLA L. Rev. 841 (2010)

Andrea Joy Parker, Note, Dare to compare: determining what "other available methods" can be considered under Federal Rule 23(b)(3)'s superiority requirement, 44 Ga. L. Rev. 581 (2010)

Julie B. Rubenstein, Note, Fraud on the global market: U.S. courts don't buy it; subject-matter jurisdiction in f-cubed securities class actions, 95 Cornell L. Rev. 627 (2010)


Recent Scholarship | Permalink


Post a comment