Evidence, Unfairness, and Market-Share Liability: A Comment on Geistfeld
This response argues that the proposals in Geistfeld’s “provocative and insightful” article may be too far-reaching, and specifically contends that… Continue reading →
This response argues that the proposals in Geistfeld’s “provocative and insightful” article may be too far-reaching, and specifically contends that… Continue reading →
Paul E. McGreal responds to both Gil Seinfeld’s original article and Trevor W. Morrison’s response, Complete Preemption and the Separation… Continue reading →
Professor Bagenstos that while Professor Colker’s arguments are compelling, “[h]er article fails to establish that the IDEA’s individualized integration presumption… Continue reading →
In PTO’s Future: Reform or Abolition?, Professor Masur responds to the panelists from Intellectual Property Meets Administrative Law: Institutional Reform… Continue reading →
In American Corporate Governance Indices as Seen from a European Perspective, Professor Klaus Hopt provides his insights from a continental… Continue reading →
Professor Vikramaditya Khanna offers his thoughts on Bebchuk and Hamdani’s article in Corporate Governance Ratings: One Score, Two Scores, or… Continue reading →
Professor Garrett’s article on the constitutional standing of corporations employs the heuristic of “effective” litigation to unpack the lack of… Continue reading →
In Testing the Master Tools, Professor Kimberly West‐Faulcon responds to Professors Guy‐Uriel Charles and Girardeau Spann, who critiqued West‐Faulcon's article… Continue reading →
In Fateful Bankers, Professor Zaring describes the strengths of Professor Omarova's article, that it does not overly rely on heavy‐handed… Continue reading →
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is a doctrinal mess. Through a totality of circumstances inquiry, Section 2 has… Continue reading →