"Great cases like hard cases make bad law" declared Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in his dissenting opinion in the Northern Securities antitrust case of 1904. His maxim argues that those cases which ascend to the Supreme Court of the United States by virtue of their national importance, interest, or other extreme circumstance, make for poor bases upon which to construct a general law. Frequently, such cases catch the public's attention because they raise important legal issues, and they become landmark decisions from a doctrinal standpoint. Yet from a practical perspective, great cases could create laws poorly suited for far less publicly tantalizing but far more common situations. In Do Great Cases Make Bad Law?, Lackland H. Bloom, Jr. tests Justice Holmes' dictum by analyzing in detail the history of the Supreme Court's great cases, from Marbury v. Madison in 1803, to National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act case, in 2012. He treats each case with its own chapter, and explains why the Court found a case compelling, how the background and historical context affected the decision and its place in constitutional law and history, how academic scholarship has treated the case, and how the case integrates with and reflects off of Justice Holmes' famous statement. In doing so, Professor Bloom draws on the whole of the Supreme Court's decisional history to form an intricate scholarly understanding of the holistic significance of the Court's reasoning in American constitutional law.
Perhaps no kind of regulation is more common or less useful than mandated disclosure--requiring one party to a transaction to give the other information. It is the iTunes terms you assent to, the doctor's consent form you sign, the pile of papers you get with your mortgage. Reading the terms, the form, and the papers is supposed to equip you to choose your purchase, your treatment, and your loan well. More Than You Wanted to Know surveys the evidence and finds that mandated disclosure rarely works. But how could it? Who reads these disclosures? Who understands them? Who uses them to make better choices? Omri Ben-Shahar and Carl Schneider put the regulatory problem in human terms. Most people find disclosures complex, obscure, and dull. Most people make choices by stripping information away, not layering it on. Most people find they can safely ignore most disclosures and that they lack the literacy to analyze them anyway. And so many disclosures are mandated that nobody could heed them all. Nor can all this be changed by simpler forms in plainer English, since complex things cannot be made simple by better writing. Furthermore, disclosure is a lawmakers' panacea, so they keep issuing new mandates and expanding old ones, often instead of taking on the hard work of writing regulations with bite. Timely and provocative, More Than You Wanted to Know takes on the form of regulation we encounter daily and asks why we must encounter it at all.
For years, robots were solely a matter of science fiction. Today, artificial intelligence technologies serve to accelerate our already fast-paced lives even further. From Apple's Siri to the Google Car to GPS, machines and technologies that make decisions and take action without direct human supervision have become commonplace in our daily lives. As a result, laws must be amended to protect companies that produce robots and the people that buy and use them. This book provides an extensive examination of how numerous legal areas--including liability, traffic, zoning, and international and constitutional law--must adapt to the widespread use of artificial intelligence in nearly every area of our society. The author scrutinizes the laws governing such fields as transportation, medicine, law enforcement, childcare, and real estate development.
For more than two centuries, Kentucky women have fought for the right to vote, own property, control their wages, and be safe at home and in the workplace. Tragically, many of these women's voices have been silenced by abuse and violence. In Violence against Women in Kentucky: A History of U.S. and State Legislative Reform, Carol E. Jordan chronicles the stories of those who have led the legislative fight for the last four decades to protect women from domestic violence, rape, stalking, and related crimes. The story of Kentucky's legislative reforms is a history of substantial toil, optimism, advocacy, and personal sacrifice by those who proposed the change. This compelling narrative illustrates, through their own points of view, the stories of survivors who serve as inspiration for change. Jordan analyzes national legislative reforms as well as the strategies that have been used to enact and enforce legislation addressing rape and domestic violence at a local level. Violence against Women in Kentucky is the first book to look at the history of domestic violence and rape in a state that consistently falls at the bottom of women's rights rankings, as told by the activists and survivors who fought for change. Detailing the successes and failures of reforms and outlining the work that is still to be done, this volume reflects on the future of women's rights legislation in Kentucky.
Economics and Law
This book deals with the central question in statutory interpretation -- the role of the judge. It argues that it is both legitimate and desirable for the interpreter to take into account policy considerations when determining the meaning of a statute. The author calls this pragmatic judicial partnering. The pragmatic approach rejects two traditional views of the judicial role -- textualism and intentionalism -- which assume that the interpreter is nothing but a legislative agent.
Part I of the book makes the case for pragmatic judicial partnering. My claim is that pragmatic interpretation is constitutional, that it provides the best description of statutory interpretation, and that it is the best normative conception of how judges should interpret legislation. It also argues that judicial opinions should reveal the indeterminacy that is inherent in determining the meaning of legislation and the creative role that judges play in shaping that meaning. Part II is a critique of the leading advocates of the view that judge should be legislative agents -- Justice Scalia and Professor Manning (both textualists); Professor Elhauge (an intentionalist); and Professor Vermeule (an institutional literalist).
An Epilogue indentifies the fundamental issue as one of legal culture. It suggests that we may be entering a period where mistrust of judging leads to rejection of pragmatic judicial partnering in favor of the judge-as-legislative-agent.
Land Use Planning
This book (a) synthesizes and distills the research, anecdotal evidence, and key concepts on leadership techniques and success that help working women, in any field, develop in their careers; (b) tailors these principles for women practicing law, regardless of practice area, and creates practical actions that lawyers can implement in their lives and workplaces; and (c) puts the learning into practice by hearing from women who are leading in legal fields and by transforming themselves with a total leadership makeover. Learning to Lead provides a concise road map of the latest collective wisdom on leadership and applies those principles to women lawyers. It features interviews with 11 women legal leaders who share their lessons learned and tips for success. Women lawyers will read this book, take action, and chart their courses to leadership and success.
Trusts & Estates
It was the largest one-time amount—$35 million—anyone had ever donated to benefit a university. The Robertsons were specific about the way the money was to be used. It was intended to help Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs focus on sending its graduates into those areas of the federal government concerned with international relations. “But the university,” the son says, “was ignoring my parents’ intentions.” Furthermore, Princeton’s administrators were “harming the country.” That’s not, as you might imagine, the way Princeton saw it—or sees it today.How much control over a gift does a donor have after the gift is given? How accountable is a non-profit recipient for the use of the gift?“Robertson v. Princeton may be the most important case higher education has faced over the question of honoring the wishes of the donor.” Wall Street Journal“Doug White’s careful and fair study of the seminal Robertson Foundation endowment litigation against Princeton University should be read by all donors and donees. As a former head of the New York State Law Department’s Charities Bureau, I know donors have to have both courage and resources to enforce their rights, especially against iconic donees. Fortunately, the Robertsons had both.” Bill Josephson, Former head of the Charities Bureau, New York State Attorney General’s officeThis book is based on extensive research and interviews with leading attorneys Victoria Bjorklund and Douglas Eakeley (Princeton) and Ron Malone and Seth Lapidow (Robertson family), experts for both sides, representatives of other major nonprofits, philanthropists, and high-profile public figures including George H.W. Bush, Brent Scowcroft, Chuck Robb, and Paul Volcker.