Alton on Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Holmes: A Tale of Two Testaments

Stephen R. Alton, Texas A & M School of Law, has published Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Holmes: A Tale of Two Testaments as a Texas A& M University School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper. Here is the abstract.

This article takes the form of an epistolary exchange across the centuries, comparing and contrasting two noted wills in Victorian literature. The first of these testaments is the final will of Dr. Henry Jekyll, in Robert Louis Stevenson’s The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde; this will bequeaths the doctor’s estate to his friend and attorney, Gabriel John Utterson. The second testament is the putative will of Jonas Oldacre, in Arthur Conan Doyle’s The Adventure of the Norwood Builder; this will bequeaths Oldacre’s estate to the young solicitor who drafted the will, John Hector McFarlane. Taken together, these two testaments raise the issues of the testator’s capacity and intent to make the will, undue influence and bequests to attorneys (notably to the drafting attorney), due execution of the will, and the effect of the beneficiary’s possible murder of the testator. A comparison of these two fictional Victorian-era wills remains relevant today because the legal issues that these two testaments raised in 19th century England are still very much present in 21st century America.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

BYU Law Storytelling Event Held March 18: BYU LawStories

Some news on storytelling and legal education via AALS and Cision.  BYU Law held its first storytelling initiative on March 18. Ten invited participants, selected from 40 submitters, presented nonfiction narratives explaining the links between their lives and the law at BYU LawStories.  More here. 

Abdel-Khalik on Scènes à Faire As Identity Trait Stereotyping @UMKCLaw

Jasmine Abdel-Khalik, University of Missouri, Kansas City, is published Scènes à Faire As Identity Trait Stereotyping in volume 2 of the Business, Entrepreneurship & Tax Law Review (2018). Here is the abstract.

Nichols v. Universal Pictures is one of the seminal copyright cases, but there is an unexplored component the decision - the court's discussion of the "low comedy Jew and Irishman." The decision creates at least one place where the law not only recognizes but may expect and encourage stereotyping based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, gender expression, nationality, and the like (“identity traits”) - stock characters. A stock character is the archetype of a story’s character and, as such, is excluded from copyright protection, making the stock freely available for other authors to use. However, harm arises when courts agree that a stock character is comprised of an identity trait and any other characteristic, indicating that what flows naturally from that identity trait is something more than just that identity - a stereotype. Courts cannot solve the societal harm of stereotyping, but it can take steps to minimize identity trait stereotyping while continuing to permit the use of stock characters. First, courts should recognize three categories of characters in creative works: stock, indefinite, and distinctly delineated. While only distinctly delineated characters would have copyright protection, the intermediate category allows courts to find that a character has multiple characteristics without implying that the characteristics are standard for specific identity traits. Second, courts must separate the determination of a character’s scope and copyrightability from the substantial similarity analysis to avoid conflating similarity with stock. Third, when possible, courts should also take the opportunity to correct the errors of the past. While no copyright doctrine alone is to blame for society’s stereotyping and stereotypes, scènes à faire grants judicial approval for continuing stereotyping. Without more care, the consequences could not only further entrench negative stereotypes in the creative mind, but also in the minds of those who consume their creative product.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

ICYMI: Julia Laite, Common Prostitutes and Ordinary Citizens: Commercial Sex in London, 1885-1960 (2011) @JuliaLaite

Here ICYMI:  More from Julia Laite, Reader in Modern History, University of London:

Common Prostitutes and Ordinary Citizens: Commercial Sex in London, 1885-1960 (Palgrave Macmillan, 2011). Here from the publisher's website is a description of the book's contents.

Between 1885 and 1960, laws and policies designed to repress prostitution dramatically shaped London's commercial sex industry. This book examines how laws translated into street-level reality, explores how women who sold sex experienced criminalization, and charts the complex dimensions of the underground sexual economy in the modern metropolis.

 

Anderson on Peremptory Challenges at the Turn of the Nineteenth Century

April Anderson, Independent Scholar, has published Peremptory Challenges at the Turn of the Nineteenth Century: Development of Modern Jury Selection Strategies As Seen in Practitioners’ Trial Manuals. Here is the abstract.

Peremptory strikes on the basis of race, national origin, religion, and class are well-known problems in modern jury selection, and have led to calls to abolish peremptory strikes altogether. Defenders of peremptory strikes argue that they are a fixture of the common law system that should not be discarded because of a few abuses. This Article explores how and why strategic jury selection developed in the United States by looking at previously unstudied primary source materials: nineteenth-century trial-attorneys’ practice guides. Peremptory challenges and voir dire are difficult to study because court records often leave them out. Even when strikes are recorded, an attorney’s strategy may not be evident to the outsider. But practice guide materials reveal these strategies, demonstrating that nineteenth-century attorneys used peremptory strikes to eliminate jurors based on stereotypes regarding race, national origin, religion, and class. They also show how a number of features of the modern American jury selection system—most notably, extended pretrial questioning of jurors—were expanded from their more limited common law forms to make it easier for lawyers to either respond to particular social prejudices in American society or to make discriminatory peremptory challenges. These findings have important implications for the modern-day debate over peremptory challenges. While proponents of peremptory challenges point to their ancient origins as justification for keeping them, a historical perspective shows that modern jury selection looks nothing like its English common law progenitor. Analysis of turn-of-the-century practices, the beginnings of the procedures we use now, exposes modern abuses as part of a trend that began in the 1800s. Simply put, the problems reformers now point to are not recent abuses that have crept in to an ancient system. They have existed for as long as the jury selection procedures we know have been practiced. Modern jury selection and abusive tactics grew up simultaneously in the 1800s as a reaction to the country’s social divisions, suggesting that discrimination as a trial strategy is inevitable in a heterogeneous society where courts allow extended voir dire and unfettered peremptory challenges.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

ICYMI: Laite on Prostitutes and Legal Identity in Early Twentieth Century London @JuliaLaite

ICYMI: Julia A. Laite, Taking Nellie Johnson's Fingerprints: Prostitutes and Legal Identity in Early Twentieth Century London, 65 History Workshop Journal 96 (Spring 2008).

Heinze on An Anti-Liberal Defense of Free Speech @Eric_Heinze

Eric Heinze, Queen Mary University of London, School of Law, is publishing An Anti-Liberal Defense of Free Speech: Foundations of Democracy in the Western Philosophical Canon in the Oxford Handbook of Law and Humanities (forthcoming). Here is the abstract.

Western democracies have determined the extent and limits of free expression largely within rights-based frameworks. As captured by Mill’s classically liberal “harm principle”, expression is permitted except insofar as legislatures and courts deem it to cause some unacceptable harm. Through a review of certain texts foundational for democracy, however, we can identify principles different from the standard liberal principles. Beginning in ancient Athens, we discover that questions of legal legitimacy invariably become questions of civic participation; and civic participation is nothing if not expression. It is no exaggeration to suggest that Western political philosophy altogether begins with that observation: Plato’s Crito presents the West’s first systematic enquiry into the question of legal legitimacy – that is, the question of when the law can bind us through moral rightness, beyond sheer physical coercion. The law binds us precisely to the extent of the freedom we have enjoyed to disagree with it.

Download the essay from SSRN at the link.

Sepper on Sex in Public

Elizabeth Sepper, Washington University School of Law, is publishing Sex in Public in volume 129 of the Yale Law Journal. Here is the abstract.

This Article recounts the first history of sex in public accommodations law—a history essential to debates that rage today over gender and sexuality in public. Just fifty years ago, not only sexual minorities but also cisgender women were the subject of discrimination in public. Restaurants and bars displayed “men-only” signs. Women held secondary-status in civic organizations, like Rotary and Jaycees, and were excluded altogether from many professional bodies, like press clubs. Sports—from the Little League to the golf club—kept girls and women from achieving athletic excellence. Insurance companies and financial institutions subsumed married women’s identities within those of their husbands. Over the course of the 1970s, the feminist movement protested and litigated against sex discrimination in public accommodations. They secured state laws opening up commerce and leisure for “full and equal enjoyment” by both sexes. At the time “sex” was added to state public accommodations laws, feminists, their opponents, and government actors understood sex equality in public to signify more than equal access to the public sphere. It also implicated freedom from the regulation of sexuality and gender performance and held the potential to transform institutions central to dominant masculinity, like baseball fields and bathrooms. This history informs the interpretation of public accommodations laws in controversies from same-sex couples’ wedding cakes to transgender people’s restroom access.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Tourists as Post-Witnesses in Documentary Film: Sergei Loznitsa's Austerlitz and Rex Bloomstein's KZ @cardiffuni

David Clarke, Cardiff University, is publishing Tourists As Post-Witnesses in Documentary Film: Sergei Loznitsa's Austerlitz (2016) and Rex Bloomstein's KZ (2006) in the Oñati Socio-Legal Series, Forthcoming. Here is the abstract in English and Spanish.

English abstract: This article compares two documentary films that address an apparent crisis of post-witnessing at memorials that commemorate the victims of National Socialism. In the context of contemporary debates about appropriate behaviour for tourists at sites of “dark” or “difficult” heritage, Sergei Loznitsa’s Austerlitz (2016) and Rex Bloomstein’s KZ (2006) take very different approaches to observing the act of visiting concentration camp memorials. Whereas Loznitsa adopts an observational documentary mode, constructing a cultural hierarchy between the touristic observer and the cinematic observer at memorials in Germany, Bloomstein’s film uses a participatory mode to prompt the viewer to consider the complexities of the affective-discursive practice of tourists engaging with the suffering of victims at the Mauthausen memorial in Austria. The article argues that Bloomstein’s decision to adopt a participatory approach is more productive in allowing us to think about the significance of responses to victims’ suffering at such sites.

Spanish abstract: Este artículo compara dos documentales que giran en torno a una aparente crisis del post-testimonio en monumentos a las víctimas del nacionalsocialismo. En el contexto del debate actual sobre cómo deben comportarse los turistas en lugares de herencia “oscura” o “difícil”, Austerlitz (2016), de Sergei Loznitsa, y KZ (2006), de Rex Bloomstein, observan de forma muy diferente el acto de visitar antiguos campos de concentración. Mientras Loznitsa adopta un modo de observación documental, construyendo una jerarquía cultural entre el observador turístico y el cinemático, Bloomstein opta por un modo participativo para exhortar al espectador a considerar las complejidades de las prácticas afectivo-discursivas de los turistas que se comprometen con el sufrimiento de las víctimas. El artículo argumenta que la decisión de Bloomstein de adoptar un enfoque participativo es más productivo a la hora de propiciar nuestra reflexión sobre el significado de las respuestas al sufrimiento de las víctimas en esos lugares.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

McGoldrick on The Dormant Commerce Clause: The Origin Story and the "Considerable Uncertainties"--1824 to 1945

James M. McGoldrick, Pepperdine University School of Law, is publishing The Dormant Commerce Clause: The Origin Story and the 'Considerable Uncertainties'—1824 to 1945 in the Creighton Law Review. Here is the abstract.

The doctrine that Congress’ commerce power all by itself limits the state power to regulate interstate commerce is called the Dormant Commerce Clause, or sometimes the Negative Commerce Clause, because any limits are not specifically stated but rather are implicit from the grant of power to Congress. Marshall gave the Dormant Commerce Clause doctrine its name in Black-Bird Creek, his most famous case other than Gibbons to raise the dormant clause issue, but again he did not see the issue as controlling. And thus the Dormant Commerce Clause was born. As the Wayfair Court summarized the dormant commerce clause test, the modern version of the dormant commerce clause has evolved into two major components: First, state and local laws that discriminate against interstate commerce are virtually per se invalid. Second, a balancing test is used to determine if evenhanded laws impose an unreasonable burden. One of the most interesting aspects of Wayfair’s summary of the Dormant Commerce Clause test is that it leaves out any mention of the direct/indirect portion of the test. Marshall’s rational for the Dormant Commerce was modified, if not rejected, by Cooley v. Board of Wardens. Cooley emphasized that some subjects needed uniformity while other subjects needing diversity. This was called the Subject Test or the Doctrine of Selective Exclusivity. Gibbons, Black Bird Creek, and Cooley all mulled about for over a hundred years before the Court in 1945 in Southern Pacific v. Arizona, citing both Black Bird Creek and Cooley, summarized what it viewed as the then current state of the dormant commerce clause, “Although the commerce clause conferred on the national government power to regulate commerce, its possession of the power does not exclude all state power of regulation.” The Court continued, “Ever since Willson v. Black-Bird Creek Marsh Co., and Cooley v. Board of Wardens, it has been recognized that, in the absence of conflicting legislation by Congress, there is a residuum of power in the state to make laws governing matters of local concern which nevertheless in some measure affect interstate commerce or even, to some extent, regulate it.” Southern Pacific undertook a straightforward balancing of competing interest between the harm to interstate commerce and the importance of the state interest. Southern Pacific largely replaced Cooley’s subject test for more sophisticated balancing of competing interest approach. As the Court put it in Wayfair, “Though considerable uncertainties were yet to be overcome, these precedents [Gibbons, Black Bird Creek, and Cooley] still laid the groundwork for the analytical framework that now prevails for Commerce Clause cases.” This article will try to provide some light to those over 100 years of “considerable uncertainties” between Cooley and Southern Pacific, a period of time when the Court among other developments tried to reconcile the Gibbons’ exclusivity and Cooley’s selective exclusivity views of the Dormant Commerce Clause. The modern application of Dormant Commerce Clause test will be saved for another time.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Mohr on Leo Kohn and the Law of the British Empire @UCDLawSchool

Thomas Mohr, Sutherland School of Law, University College Dublin, has published Leo Kohn and the Law of the British Empire as UCD Working Papers in Law, Criminology & Socio-Legal Studies Research Paper No. 12/2019. Here is the abstract.

Leo Kohn’s 1932 publication, The Constitution of the Irish Free State, is widely recognised as the leading textbook on the Irish 1922 constitution. Many aspects of this constitution have been reproduced or have influenced the provisions of the current Irish constitution of 1937. This ensures that Kohn’s book continues to be cited in major Irish court cases and scholarly works on law and history. Yet the 1922 constitution also contained a large number of provisions that were not reproduced in the 1937 constitution. These provisions concerned important aspects of British Imperial law and reflected the demands of the 1921 Treaty that created a special constitutional link between the Irish Free State and Canada and a secondary link to the other Dominions of the British Commonwealth and Empire. Kohn’s analysis of these provisions constitutes one of the most radical and politicised aspects of his book. While this article focuses on Kohn’s book and other legal works produced by him it does not purport to serve as a definitive biography of the man himself. Instead, this article challenges the accuracy of Kohn’s analyses relating to points of British Imperial law. In some instances, Kohn’s analyses were accurate in the context of 1932 when his book was published, but attempts to backdate these conclusions to the time of the birth of the Irish Free State constitution in 1922 are open to serious challenge. Despite these realities, Kohn’s conclusion that aspects of British Imperial law were nothing more than “archaic symbols” whose “meaningless for Ireland was writ large on every page” have had a profound impact on Irish law and historiography. This article also argues that Kohn’s attempts to minimise the significance of these aspects of British Imperial law may also have been influenced by his long-term ambition to draft a constitution for a Jewish State within the British Mandate of Palestine.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Forthcoming from Desmond Manderson: Danse Macabre (Cambridge University Press)

Desmond Manderson, Australian National University, is publishing Danse Macabre: Temporalities of Law in the Visual Arts (Cambridge University Press) (forthcoming June 2019). Here from the publisher's website is a description of the book's contents.

The visual arts offer refreshing and novel resources through which to understand the representation, power, ideology and critique of law. This vibrantly interdisciplinary book brings the burgeoning field to a new maturity through extended close readings of major works by artists from Pieter Bruegel and Gustav Klimt to Gordon Bennett and Rafael Cauduro. At each point, the author puts these works of art into a complex dance with legal and social history, and with recent developments in legal and art theory. Manderson uses the idea of time and temporality as a focal point through which to explore how the work of art engages with and constitutes law and human lives. In the symmetries and asymmetries caused by the vibrating harmonic resonances of these triple forces - time, law, art - lies a way of not only understanding the world, but also transforming it.

 

Call for Abstracts: JurisApocalypse Now! Law in End Times, December 2-4, 2019 (LLHAA)

Southern Cross University School of Law and Justice, in partnership with the Law, Literature and the Humanities Association of Australasia (LLHAA), is proud to convene and organise the 2019 LLHAA conference titled JurisApocalypse Now! Law in End Times, which will be held at Southern Cross University Gold Coast Campus on 2-4 December 2019.

The conference will explore the intersection of legality, temporality and eschatology, the normatively uncertain and yet inherently creative space originated by the conflicting encounter between the orderly desire of law and the entropic tendency of apocalyptic narratives, with both forces cast against the backdrop of the ever-­deferred notion of time itself.

Furthermore, the conference is organised in conjunction with the 2019 Law and Society Association of Australia and New Zealand (LSAANZ) conference, titled Survive, Thrive, Die: Law in End Times, which will be held on 5-7 December 2019, still at Southern Cross University Gold Coast Campus. The two conferences, although distinct and separate, are nonetheless connected by a shared overarching theme, and are articulated around a shared Postgraduate Day, which will be held on the 5^th December. Scholars are invited, in a profoundly interdisciplinary manner, to participate in either or both conferences.

For further information, or if you have any query about the conferences, please visit https://sljresearch.net.au/lawinendtimes/

Southern Cross University School of Law and Justice, in partnership with the Law, Literature and the Humanities Association of Australasia (LLHAA), is proud to convene and organise the 2019 LLHAA conference titled JurisApocalypse Now! Law in End Times, which will be held at Southern Cross University Gold Coast Campus on 2-4 December 2019.

The conference will explore the intersection of legality, temporality and eschatology, the normatively uncertain and yet inherently creative space originated by the conflicting encounter between the orderly desire of law and the entropic tendency of apocalyptic narratives, with both forces cast against the backdrop of the ever-­deferred notion of time itself.

Furthermore, the conference is organised in conjunction with the 2019 Law and Society Association of Australia and New Zealand (LSAANZ) conference, titled Survive, Thrive, Die: Law in End Times, which will be held on 5-7 December 2019, still at Southern Cross University Gold Coast Campus. The two conferences, although distinct and separate, are nonetheless connected by a shared overarching theme, and are articulated around a shared Postgraduate Day, which will be held on the 5^th December. Scholars are invited, in a profoundly interdisciplinary manner, to participate in either or both conferences.

For further information, or if you have any query about the conferences, please visit https://sljresearch.net.au/lawinendtimes/

CALL FOR ABSTRACTS

Submission deadline: 31 July 2019

The Organising Committee invites the submission of abstracts of original work. Abstracts can be submitted for consideration for an oral presentation or a hard copy poster.

The Organising Committee will endeavour to notify presenters whether their proposed paper has been accepted at the beginning of each month following the abstract’s submission.

Submissions can be made using the following link:

https://sljresearch.net.au/lawinendtimes/call-for-abstracts/llhaa/

Law Text Culture: Call For Proposals @popgoesthelegal @law_text

Law Text Culture: Call for Proposals for Volume 24 (2020), due May 1, 2019 

The Editorial Board of Law Text Culture is seeking proposals for the 2020 edition of the Journal (Volume 24), due for publication in December 2020.

Law Text Culture is a transcontinental, peer-reviewed interdisciplinary journal which aims to produce fresh insights and knowledges about law and jurisprudence across three interconnected axes:

Politics: engaging the relationship of force and resistance

Aesthetics: eliciting the relationship of judgment and expression

Ethics: exploring the relationship of self and other.

The annual thematic special issue, curated by guest editors, is selected by the editorial board. Each issue explores its theme across a range of genres, with scholarly essays and articles sitting alongside visual and literary engagements. In this way, Law Text Culture excites unique intersectional and interdisciplinary encounters with law in all its forms.

Proposals by potential guest editors should include: a concise description of the proposed theme; a draft call for papers setting out the aims and concepts of the issue; and how it fits within the remit of the journal; an indication of the intended authors and how they are to be identified/contacted (eg whether the proposal arises out of a seminar series, conference or workshop); the range of genres (poetry, scholarly essays, visual arts etc) expected to be included; an explanation of how the copy-editing will be completed, including whether the guest editor/s will secure appropriate funding for copy-editing (usually approx $1000), or undertake the copy-editing themselves; and brief details of the guest editor(s).

Proposals should be 1000 words (approx) and should be emailed to the Managing Editor by close of business 1 May 2019.

For further information, including the role of guest editors, and the journal style guide, please visit: LTC at LIRC. Details on the editors and themes of previous editions of Law Text Culture are available at: UOW Research Online. Associate Professor Cassandra Sharp Managing Editor Law Text Culture School of Law, University of Wollongong NSW Email: csharp@uow.edu.au

Abrams on References To Television Shows in Judicial Opinions and Written Advocacy (Part I) @mobarnews

Douglas E. Abrams, University of Missouri School of Law, has published References to Television Shows in Judicial Opinions and Written Advocacy (Part I) at 75 Journal of the Missouri Bar 25 (Jan.-Feb. 2019). Here is the abstract.

Professor Abrams authors a column, Writing it Right, in the Journal of the Missouri Bar. In a variety of contexts, the column stresses the fundamentals of quality legal writing - conciseness, precision, simplicity, and clarity.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Call For Proposals: Persons in Poetry and Law: Proposel Panel for MLA 2020

From the mailbox:

Call For Proposals: Persons in Poetry and Law

Proposed Panel for MLA 2020
January 9-12, 2020
Seattle, WA
 What relationships exist between poetic and legal invocations of personhood? What emerges in examining the formal strategies involved in processes of invocation? Seeking papers that put poems and legal texts in conversation. Please send 300-word proposals to Talia Shalev (tshalev@gradcenter.cuny.edu) by Wednesday, March 11, 2019.

Sawers on Race and Property After the Civil War: Creating the Right To Exclude

Brian Sawers, Georgetown University Law Center, is publishing Race and Property After the Civil War: Creating the Right to Exclude in volume 87 of the Mississippi Law Journal (2018). Here is the abstract.

This Article uncovers a lost history of property, showing the role that race and white supremacy played in the development of modern trespass law. Property law does not change in response to economic opportunities, evolving to ever-more efficiency. Instead, property law reflects political power. At times, the political process may reorient property law to produce a larger surplus. Oftentimes, politics produce redistribution from the weak to the powerful. States closed the range to coerce blacks into working for white landowners for low wages and under bad conditions. Southern society as a whole suffered from the planter’s greed. Low wages and cruel laws impoverished not only black and white sharecroppers, but the entire region. Changing property law was a core element of the program of legal aggression that began with the black codes and continued with Jim Crow.

The full text is not available from SSRN.

Bradley and Siegel on Madisonian Liquidation and the Originalism Debate @curtisabradley @NeilScottSiegel

Curtis Bradley and Neil Siegel, both of Duke University School of Law, have published Historical Gloss, Madisonian Liquidation, and the Originalism Debate as Duke Law School Public Law & Legal Theory Series No. 2019-15. Here is the abstract.

The U.S. Constitution is old, relatively brief, and very difficult to amend. In its original form, the Constitution was primarily a framework for a new national government, and for 230 years the national government has operated under that framework even as conditions have changed in ways beyond the Founders’ conceivable imaginations. The framework has survived in no small part because government institutions have themselves played an important role in helping to fill in and clarify the framework through their practices and interactions, informed by the realities of governance. Courts, the political branches, and academic commentators commonly give weight to such post-Founding governmental practice in discerning the Constitution’s separation of powers. That approach has been referred to as the “historical gloss” method of constitutional interpretation, based on language that Justice Frankfurter used to describe the concept in his concurrence in the Youngstown steel seizure case. Some originalist commentators, however, have advanced a potentially competing approach to crediting post-Founding practice, which they refer to as “liquidation,” an idea that they ascribe to James Madison and certain other members of the Founding generation. To date, there has not been any systematic effort to compare gloss and liquidation, even though the differences between them bear on the constitutionality of a range of governmental practices relating to both domestic and foreign affairs in the fields of constitutional law and federal courts. This Article fills that gap in the literature. We first provide an account of what must be shown in order to establish historical gloss. Our account focuses on longstanding governmental practices that have proven to be stable—that is, practices that have operated for a significant amount of time without generating continued inter-branch contestation. We then consider the extent to which the liquidation concept differs from that of gloss and whether those differences render liquidation more or less normatively attractive than gloss. We argue that a narrow account of liquidation, offered by Professor Caleb Nelson, most clearly distinguishes liquidation from gloss, but that it does so in ways that are normatively problematic. We further argue that a broader account of liquidation, recently offered by Professor William Baude, responds to those normative concerns by diminishing the distinction between liquidation and gloss, but that significant differences remain that continue to raise normative problems for liquidation. Finally, we question whether either scholar’s account of liquidation is properly attributed to Madison.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Newly Published: Thierry Nootens: Genre, Patrimoine et Droit Civil (McGill-Queen's University Press, 2019 @McgillQueensUP)

New from McGill-Queen's University Press:

Thierry Nootens, Genre, patrimoine et droit civil: Les femmes mariées de la bourgeoisie québécoise en procès, 1900-1930 (2019).