Harvard Law Review: Volume 125, Number 2 - December 2011 - Harvard Law Review

Harvard Law Review: Volume 125, Number 2 - December 2011

By Harvard Law Review

  • Release Date: 2011-12-07
  • Genre: Law

Description

The Harvard Law Review is offered in a digital edition for ereaders, featuring active Table of Contents, linked footnotes and cross-references, legible tables, and proper ebook formatting. 

The Harvard Law Review is a student-run organization whose primary purpose is to publish a journal of legal scholarship. The Review comes out monthly from November through June and has roughly 2000 pages per volume. The organization is formally independent of the Harvard Law School. Student editors make all editorial and organizational decisions. 

Aside from serving as an important academic forum for legal scholarship, the Review has two other goals. First, the journal is designed to be an effective research tool for practicing lawyers and students of the law. Second, it provides opportunities for Review members to develop their own editing and writing skills. Accordingly, each issue contains pieces by student editors as well as outside authors. The Review generally publishes articles by professors, judges, and practitioners and solicits reviews of important recent books from recognized experts. Most student writing takes the form of Notes, Recent Cases, Recent Legislation, and Book Notes. This current issue of the Review is December 2011, the second issue of academic year 2011-2012 (Volume 125). 

Articles in this issue are from such recognized scholars as Jamal Greene (writing on notorious or anti-canonical Supreme Court cases), Orin Kerr (on Fourth Amendment theory), and Michael Klarman (reviewing a new book on the constitutional convention). Student contributions feature Notes on the Dewey model of democracy and administrative agencies and on breaching international trade law. Case Notes discuss recent decisions on such topics as civil procedure, tort law, patent law, constitutional law (on transgender prisoners and on firing ranges), stem cell research funding, and corporate immunity.

Comments