Ana səhifə

A collection of Law Review Articles Citing Legal Blogs


Yüklə 248.5 Kb.
səhifə6/7
tarix26.06.2016
ölçüsü248.5 Kb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7

RiskProf (1)


URL: http://riskprof.typepad.com


  1. James A. Higgins, Recent Development: Oklahoma’s Tort Reform Act: Texas-Style Tort Reform or Texas-Style Compromise?, 57 Okla. L. Rev. 921 (Winter 2004)


SCOTUSBlog (19)


Current URL: http://www.scotusblog.com

Former URL: http://www.goldsteinhowe.com/blog




  1. Jonathan H. Adler, Is Morrison Dead? Assessing a Supreme Drug (Law) Overdose, 9 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 751 (Winter, 2005)




  1. Nicole L. Aeschleman, Comment: The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations: Quo Vadis, America?, 45 Santa Clara L. Rev. 937 (2005)




  1. Thomas E. Baker, Constitutional Theory in a Nutshell, 13 Wm. & Mary Bill of Rts. J. 57 (Oct., 2004)




  1. Robert M. Chesney, Leaving Guananamo: The Law of International Detainee Transfers, 40 U. Rich. L. Rev. 657 (March, 2006)




  1. Ronald K.L. Collins & David M. Skover, What is War? Reflections on Free Speech in “Wartime,” 36 Rutgers L. J. 833 (Spring, 2005)




  1. Jason Costa, Comment: Alone in the World: The United States’ Failure to Observe the International Human Right to Compensation for Wrongful Conviction, 19 Emory Int’l L. Rev. 1615 (Fall, 2005)




  1. Craig Estlinbaum, South Texas Law Review at Fifty: Looking Back and Looking Ahead, 46 S. Tex. L. Rev. 25 (Fall, 2004)




  1. Jason Hernandez, Blakely’s Potential, 38 Colum. J.L. & Soc. Probs. 19 (Fall, 2004)




  1. Susan R. Klein, The Return of Federal Judicial Discretion in Criminal Sentencing, 39 Val. U.L. Rev. 693 (Spring, 2005)




  1. Julian G. Ku, Structural Conflicts in the Interpretation of Customary International Law, 45 Santa Clara L. Rev. 857 (2005)




  1. Leading Case: I. Constitutional Law, 118 Harv. L. Rev. 248 (Nov., 2004)




  1. David Narkiewicz, Blogs, Bloggers and Blawgs, 25 Pennsylvania Lawyer 49 (May/June, 2003)




  1. Gary O’Connor & Stephanie Tai, Legal and Appellate Weblogs: What They Are, Why You Should Read Them, and Why You Should Consider Starting Your Own, 5 J. App. Prac. & Process 205 (Spring, 2003)




  1. John T. Parry, “Society Must Be [Regulated]”: Biopolitics and the Commerce Clause in Gonzales v. Raich, 9 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 853 (Winter, 2005)




  1. Glenn H. Reynolds & Brannon P. Denning, What Hath Raich Wrought? Five Takes, 9 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 915 (Winter, 2005)




  1. Stephen J. Schulhofer, Checks and Balances in Wartime: American, British and Israeli Experiences, 102 Mich. L. Rev. 1906 (Aug., 2004)




  1. Kevin S. Schwartz, Note: Applying Section 5: Tennessee v. Lane and Judicial Conditions on the Congressional Enforcement Power, 114 Yale L.J. 1133 (March, 2005)




  1. Sean Kevin Thompson, Note: The Legality of the Use of Psychiatric Neuroimaging in Intelligence Interrogation, 90 Cornell L. Rev. 1601 (Sept., 2005)




  1. Charles D. Weisselberg, The Detention and Treatment of Aliens Three Years After September 11: A New New World?, 38 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 815 (March, 2005)



Scrivener’s Error (1)

URL: http://scrivenerserror.blogspot.com




  1. Jonathan Kerry-Tyerman, No Analog Analogue: Searchable Digital Archives and Amazon’s Unprecedented Search Inside the Book Program as Fair Use, 2006 Stan. Tech. L. Rev. 1 (2006)


Sentencing Law and Policy (60)


URL: http://sentencing.typepad.com


  1. American Bar Association, Criminal Justice Section, Report on Booker and Recommendation, 17 Fed. Sent. R. 335 (June, 2005)




  1. Robert J. Anello & Jodi Misher Peikin, Evolving Roles in Federal Sentencing: The Post-Booker/Fanfan World, 2005 Fed. Cts. L. Rev. 9 (Oct. 2005)




  1. Jeffrey R. Babbin et al, Developments in the Second Circuit: 2003-2004, 37 Conn. L. Rev. 963 (Summer 2005)




  1. Eric G. Barber, Judicial Discretion, Sentencing Guidelines, and Lessons from Medieval England, 27 W. New Eng. L. Rev. 1 (2005)




  1. Rachel E. Barkow, Separation of Powers and the Criminal Law, 58 Stan. L. Rev. 989 (Feb. 2006)




  1. Douglas A. Berman, Punishment and Crime: Reconceptualizing Sentencing, 2005 U Chi Legal F 1 (2005)




  1. Douglas B. Bloom, United States v. Booker and United States v. Fanfan: The Tireless March of Apprendi and the Intracourt Battle To Save Sentencing Reform, 40 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 539 (Summer 2005)




  1. Frank O. Bowman, III, Train Wreck? Or Can the Federal Sentencing System be Saved? A Plea for Rapid Reversal of Blakely v. Washington, 41 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 217 (Spring 2004)




  1. Frank O. Bowman, III, Punishment and Crime: Beyond Band-Aids: A Proposal for Reconfiguring Federal Sentencing After Booker, 2005 U Chi Legal F 149 (2005)




  1. Frank O. Bowman, III, Symposium: Panel Four: The Institutional Concerns Inherent in Sentencing Regimes: The Failure of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines: A Structural Analysis, 05 Colum. L. Rev. 1315 (May 2005)




  1. Frank O. Bowman, III, Mr. Madison Meets a Time Machine: The Political Science of Federal Sentencing Reform, 58 Stan. L. Rev. 235 (Oct. 2005)




  1. Ellen Byers, Mentally Ill Criminal Offenders and the Strict Liability Effect: Is There Hope for a Just Jurisprudence in an Era of Responsibility/Consequences Talk?, 57 Ark. L. Rev. 447 (2004)




  1. Paul G. Cassell, Recognizing Victims in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure: Proposed Amendments in Light of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, 2005 B.Y.U.L. Rev. 835 (2005)




  1. Steven L. Chanenson, Hoist with their Own Petard?, 17 Fed. Sent. R. 20 (Oct. 2004)




  1. Steven L. Chanenson & Daniel F. Wilhelm, Evolution and Denial: State Sentencing after Blakely and Booker, 18 Fed. Sent. R. 1 (Oct. 2005)




  1. Steven L. Chanenson, Guidance from Above and Beyond, 58 Stan. L. Rev. 175 (Oct. 2005)




  1. Steven L. Chanenson, The Next Era of Sentencing Reform , 54 Emory L.J. 377 (Winter 2005)




  1. Jonathan Chiu, Comment: United States v. Booker: The Demise of Mandatory Federal Sentencing Guidelines and the Return of Indeterminate Sentencing, 39 U. Rich. L. Rev. 1311 (May 2005)




  1. Timothy Cone, Double Jeopardy, Post-Blakely, 41 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 1373 (Fall 2004)




  1. David J. D’Addio, NOTE: Sentencing After Booker: The Impact of Appellate Review on Defendants’ Rights, 24 Yale L. & Pol’y Rev. 173 (Winter 2006)




  1. M.K.B. Darmer, The Federal Sentencing Guidelines After Blakely and Booker: The Limits of Congressional Tolerance and a Greater Role for Juries, 56 S.C. L. Rev. 533 (Spring 2005)




  1. Nicholas J. Eichenseer, Comment: Reasonable Doubt in the Rear-View Mirror: The Case for Blakely-Booker Retroactivity in the Federal System, 2005 Wis. L. Rev. 1137 (2005)




  1. Alan Ellis & James H. Feldman, Jr., Representing White Collar Clients in a Post-Booker World, 29 Champion 12 (Sept./Oct. 2005)




  1. Amie N. Ely, Note: Prosecutorial Discretion as an Ethical Necessity: The Ashcroft Memorandum’s Curtailment of the Prosecutor’s Duty to “Seek Justice,” 90 Cornell L. Rev. 237 (Nov. 2004)




  1. Timothy Liam Epstein, The Importance of Juries: The Impact and Implications of U.S. v. Booker: The Sixth Amendment versus Mandatory Sentencing Guidelines, 19 CBA Record 44 (Feb./Mar. 2005)




  1. George Fisher & Jennifer L. Mnookin, Book Review: Uncertain Bargains: The Rise of Plea Bargaining in AmericaPlea Bargaining’s Triumph: A History of Plea Bargaining in America, 57 Stan. L. Rev. 1721 (April 2005)




  1. Phil Fortino, A Post-Blakely Era or Post-Blakely Error?, 38 Colum. J.L. & Soc. Probs. 1 (Fall 2004)




  1. Jackie Gardina, Compromising Liberty: A Structural Critique of the Sentencing Guidelines, 38 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 345 (Winter 2005)




  1. Michael Goldsmith, Reconsidering the Constitutionality of Federal Sentencing Guidelines After Blakely: A Former Commissioner’s Perspective, 2004 B.Y.U.L. Rev. 935 (2004)




  1. Isaac M. Gradman, Note: Hot Under the White Collar: What the Rollercoaster in Sentencing Law from Blakely to Booker Will Mean to Corporate Offenders, 1 N.Y.U. J. L. & Bus. 731 (Summer, 2005)




  1. Jason Hernandez, Blakely’s Potential, 38 Colum. J.L. & Soc. Probs. 19 (Fall 2004)




  1. David E. Johnson, Note: Justice for All: Analyzing Blakely Retroactivity and Ensuring Just Sentences in Pre-Blakely Convictions, 66 Ohio St. L.J. 875 (2005)




  1. Marc E. Johnson, Everything Old is New Again: Justice Scalia’s Activist Originalism in Schriro v. Summerlin, 95 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 763 (Spring 2005)




  1. Sandra D. Jordan, Have We Come Full Circle? Judicial Sentencing Discretion Revived in Booker and Fanfan, 33 Pepp. L. Rev. 615 (2005)




  1. Steven G. Kalar et al, A Booker Advisory: Into the Breyer Patch, BY, 29 Champion 8 (March 2005)




  1. Nancy J. King & Rosevelt L. Noble, Felony Jury Sentencing in Practice: A Three-State Study, 57 Vand. L. Rev. 885 (April 2004)




  1. Susan R. Klein, The Return of Federal Judicial Discretion in Criminal Sentencing, 39 Val. U.L. Rev. 693 (Spring 2005)




  1. Andrew D. Leipold, Why are Federal Judges So Acquittal Prone?, 83 Wash. U. L. Q. 151 (2005)




  1. Erik Luna, Gridland: An Allegorical Critique of Federal Sentencing, 96 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 25 (Fall 2005)




  1. Memorandum: Presenting a Proposal for Bringing the Federal Sentencing Guidelines into Conformity with Blakely v. Washington, 16 Fed. Sent. R. 364 (Feb. 2004)




  1. Marc L. Miller, The Foundations of Law: Sentencing Equality Pathology, 54 Emory L.J. 271 (2005)




  1. Richard E. Myers II, Symposium: Locating the Constitutional Center: Centrist Judges and Mainstream Values: A Multidisciplinary Exploration: Restoring the Peers in the “Bulwark”: Blakely v. Washington and the Court’s Jury Project, 83 N.C.L. Rev. 1383 (June 2005)




  1. Christopher Nalls, Notes and Comments: Bait and Switch: Criminal Sentencing from a Due Process Perspective, 27 T. Jefferson L. Rev. 159 (Fall 2004)




  1. Teresa R. Nelson, Note: The Sixth Amendment Right to Trial by Jury: A Constitutional Guarantee versus the Demise of Sentencing Guidelines, Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), 5 Wyo. L. Rev. 317 (2005)




  1. Note: Criminal Law - Federal Sentencing Guidelines - Ninth Circuit Holds That Shaming Punishment Does Not Violate the Sentencing Reform Act.--United States v. Gementera, 379 F.3d 596 (9th Cir. 2004), 118 Harv. L. Rev. 825 (Dec. 2004).




  1. Primary Material: Petition for Rehearing on Behalf of The State of Washington in Blakely v. Washington, No. 02-1632 (filed July 26, 2004), 17 Fed. Sent. R. 71 (Oct. 2004)




  1. William H. Pryor Jr., Symposium: Sentencing: What’s at Stake for the States? Keynote Address: Lessons of a Sentencing Reformer from the Deep South, 105 Colum. L. Rev. 943 (May 2005)




  1. Aaron Rappaport, What the Supreme Court Should Do: Save Sentencing Reform, Gut the Guidelines, 17 Fed. Sent. R. 46 (October, 2004)




  1. Kevin R. Reitz, Symposium: Sentencing: What’s at Stake for the States? Panel Two: Considerations at Sentencing – What Factors are Relevant and Who Should Decide? The New Sentencing Conundrum: Policy and Constitutional Law at Cross-Purposes, 105 Colum. L. Rev. 1082 (2005)




  1. Peter B. Rutledge, The 2004 Gunderson Lecture: Apprendi, Blakely and Federalism, 50 S.D. L. Rev. 427 (2005)




  1. O. Dean Sanderford, Comment: The Feeney Amendment, United States v. Booker, and New Opportunities for the Courts and Congress, 83 N.C.L. Rev. 736 (March 2005)




  1. Douglas M. Schneider, Note: But I was Just a Kid! Does Using Juvenile Adjudications to Enhance Adult Sentences Run Afoul of Apprendi v. New Jersey? 26 Cardozo L. Rev. 837 (2005)




  1. Laura M. Schulteis, Note: In re United States of America: An Isolated Showdown Between a Prosecutor and a Judge or the Result of a Seismic Shift of Power from the Judiciary to the Executive?, 2005 Wis. L. Rev. 297 (2005)




  1. Neil S. Siegel, A Theory in Search of a Court, and Itself: Judicial Minimalism at the Supreme Court Bar, 103 Mich. L. Rev. 1951 (Aug. 2005)




  1. Kate Stith, Crime and Punishment Under the Constitution, 2004 Sup. Ct. Rev. 221 (2004)




  1. The Supreme Court, 2004 Term: Leading Cases, 119 Harv. L. Rev. 189 (Nov. 2005)




  1. Ben Trachtenberg, Note: State Sentencing Policy and New Prison Admissions, 38 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 479 (Winter 2005)




  1. Ian Weinstein & Nathaniel Z. Marmur, Federal Sentencing During the Interregnum: Defense Practice as the Blakely Dust Settles, 17 Fed. Sent. R. 51 (Oct. 2004)




  1. Ronald Wright, Blakely and the Centralizers in North Carolina, 18 Fed. Sent. R. 19 (Oct. 2005)




  1. Ronald F. Wright, Trial Distortion and the End of Innocence in Federal Criminal Justice, 154 U. Pa. L. Rev. 79 (Nov. 2005)



Southern District of Florida Blog (1)

URL: www.sdfla.blogspot.com




  1. Milton Hirsch & David Oscar Markus, Fourth Amendment Forum, 29 Champion 54 (Dec., 2005)



Sports and the Law Report (inactive) (1)

URL: http://robhagy.typepad.com/sports_law_blog




  1. Zachary Hugo Hoying, Ohio Supreme Court Decisions: 2004: State ex rel. WBNS TV, Inc. v. Dues, 31 Ohio N.U.L. Rev. 566 (2005)



Statutory Construction Zone (inactive) (1)

URL: http://www.statconblog.blogspot.com





  1. Gary E. O’Connor, Restatement (First) of Statutory Interpretation, 7 N.Y.U. J. Legis. & Pub. Pol’y 333 (2003/2004)



Supreme Court Blog (inactive) (1)

URL: http://scotus.blogspot.com




  1. Jefferson Lankford, Internet Browser: To Blog or Not to Blog, 40 AZ Attorney 10 (Feb., 2004)


Tax & Business Law Commentary (1)


URL: http://taxbiz.blogspot.com


  1. Anthony Q. Fletcher, Publish or Perish: The New York Limited Liability Company Law Publication Requirement: The Fundamental Flaw of an Otherwise Flawless Law, 1 N.Y.U. J. L. & Bus. 139 (Fall, 2004)


1   2   3   4   5   6   7

Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©atelim.com 2016
rəhbərliyinə müraciət