Go to
current issue
-
Regulatory Arbitrage and the Persistence of Financial Misconduct Stanford Law Review (IF 4.29) Pub Date : 2022-04-30 Colleen Honigsberg, Edwin Hu & Robert J. Jackson, Jr.
Abstract not available
-
Due Process in Removal Proceedings After Thuraissigiam Stanford Law Review (IF 4.29) Pub Date : 2022-04-30 Diana G. Li
Abstract not available
-
Digital Eyewitnesses Stanford Law Review (IF 4.29) Pub Date : 2022-04-30 Bailey R. Ulbricht, Christopher Moxley, Mackenzie D. Austin & Molly D. Norburg
Abstract not available
-
Corporate Governance and the Feminization of Capital Stanford Law Review (IF 4.29) Pub Date : 2022-03-31 Sarah C. Haan
Abstract not available
-
Brown and Red Stanford Law Review (IF 4.29) Pub Date : 2022-03-31 Gregory Briker & Justin Driver
Abstract not available
-
The Broken Fourth Amendment Oath Stanford Law Review (IF 4.29) Pub Date : 2022-03-31 Laurent Sacharoff
Abstract not available
-
Modern Vacancies, Ancient Remedy Stanford Law Review (IF 4.29) Pub Date : 2022-03-31 Taylor Nicolas
Abstract not available
-
Getting Public Rights Wrong Stanford Law Review (IF 4.29) Pub Date : 2022-02-28 Gregory Ablavsky
Abstract not available
-
Sequencing in Damages Stanford Law Review (IF 4.29) Pub Date : 2022-02-28 Edward K. Cheng, Ehud Guttel & Yuval Procaccia
Abstract not available
-
Against Geofences Stanford Law Review (IF 4.29) Pub Date : 2022-02-28 Haley Amster & Brett Diehl
Abstract not available
-
Restructuring Public Defense After Padilla Stanford Law Review (IF 4.29) Pub Date : 2022-01-31 Ingrid Eagly, Tali Gires, Rebecca Kutlow & Eliana Navarro Gracian
Abstract not available
-
Participatory Litigation Stanford Law Review (IF 4.29) Pub Date : 2022-01-31 Jules Lobel
Abstract not available
-
The Bribery Double Standard Stanford Law Review (IF 4.29) Pub Date : 2022-01-31 Anna A. Mance & Dinsha Mistree
Abstract not available
-
Education Equity During COVID-19 Stanford Law Review (IF 4.29) Pub Date : 2022-01-31 Bruce A. Easop
Abstract not available
-
Qualified and Absolute Immunity at Common Law Stanford Law Review (IF 4.29) Pub Date : 2021-06-29 Scott A. Keller
Qualified immunity has become one of the Supreme Court’s most controversial doctrines. But while there has been plenty of commentary criticizing the Court’s existing clearly-established-law test, there has been no thorough historical analysis examining the complicated subject of state-officer immunities under nineteenth-century common law. Yet the legitimacy of state-officer immunities, under the Court’s
-
Policing Under Disability Law Stanford Law Review (IF 4.29) Pub Date : 2021-06-19 Jamelia N. Morgan
In recent years, there has been increased attention to the problem of police violence against disabled people. Disabled people are overrepresented in police killings and, in a number of cities, police use-of-force incidents. Further, though police violence dominates the discussion of policing, disabled people also disproportionately experience more ordinary forms of policing that can lead to police
-
Traffic Without the Police Stanford Law Review (IF 4.29) Pub Date : 2021-06-19 Jordan Blair Woods
We are at a watershed moment in which growing national protest and public outcry over police injustice and brutality, especially against people of color, are animating new meanings of public safety and new proposals for structural police reforms. Traffic stops are the most frequent interaction between police and civilians today, and they are a persistent source of racial and economic injustice. Black
-
Finality, Comity, and Retroactivity in Criminal Procedure Stanford Law Review (IF 4.29) Pub Date : 2021-06-19 Jeffrey G. Ho
The Supreme Court’s habeas corpus retroactivity jurisprudence has never been a model of clarity or fairness. Ordinarily, if a case is on direct review, a court is bound to apply constitutional law as it currently stands, not the law as it stood at the time of trial, conviction, or sentencing. This rule derives fromGriffith v. Kentucky,in which the Supreme Court held that the Constitution requires that
-
Indirect Constraints on the Office of Legal Counsel Stanford Law Review (IF 4.29) Pub Date : 2021-06-19 William S. Janover
As arbiter of the constitutionality of executive actions, the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) possesses vast authority over the operation of the federal government and is one of the primary vessels for the articulation of executive power. It therefore is not surprising that the OLC has found itself at the center of controversy across Democratic and Republican administrations. OLC
Copyright © 2014-2022 北京衮雪科技有限公司 All Rights Reserved
京ICP备11026495-2号
京公网安备 11010802027423号
京公网安备 11010802027423号