Volume 156

Professor Tokaji emphasizes three ways in which his approach to election law differs from Professor Elmendorf’s. First, he argues against… Continue reading →

This Response examines Professor Stadler’s argument that “the copyright grant be reformulated to consist of no more than an exclusive… Continue reading →

This Response attempts to explain why Peñalver and Katyal’s “property outlaws” so successfully violate property owners’ exclusion rights when the… Continue reading →

Professor Fennell notes that “most property violations destabilize the social order without producing any significant offsetting benefits.” She argues that… Continue reading →

Professor Garnett is skeptical of Peñalver and Katyal’s claim that property outlaws provide beneficial and necessary “shocks” to a system… Continue reading →

Professor Underkuffler agrees with Peñalver and Katyal that, in a system which disfavors property violations, it is critical to “distinguish… Continue reading →

This response picks up on one of Professor Wright’s key findings: “the curious fact that the rate of acquittals in… Continue reading →

This response questions whether trial distortion represents a significant problem. Professor O’Hear believes our main focus should be on “mak[ing]… Continue reading →

Professor Richman applauds Professor Wright for attempting to determine whether “the inexorable reduction in trials actually reflects an impairment of… 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 →