New Issue of Marquette Law Review

I am delighted to report that the spring issue of the Marquette Law Review is now available on-line.  Here are the contents of volume 92, issue 3:

ESSAY

“IDEOLOGY IN” OR “CULTURAL COGNITION OF” JUDGING: WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?
Dan M. Kahan

ARTICLES

A MATTER OF TRUST: SHOULD NO-RELIANCE CLAUSES BAR CLAIMS FOR FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT OF CONTRACT?
Allen Blair

THE DILEMMA OF THE VENGEFUL CLIENT: A PRESCRIPTIVE FRAMEWORK FOR COOLING THE FLAMES OF ANGER
Robin Wellford Slocum

MAKING SENSE OF SCHAUMBURG: SEEKING COHERENCE IN FIRST AMENDMENT CHARITABLE SOLICITATION LAW
John D. Inazu

COMMENTS

WORKSITE RAIDS AND IMMIGRATION NORMS: A “STICKY” PROBLEM
Benjamin Crouse

SAME-SEX DIVORCE AND WISCONSIN COURTS: IMPERFECT HARMONY?
Louis Thorson

Continue ReadingNew Issue of Marquette Law Review

Beach Reading?

Apparently the news editors at the Los Angeles Times read the Marquette Law Review. That’s at least one possible conclusion one could draw from the juxtaposition of two recently published items.

Dean Kearney is in a unique place to analyze the relationship between the Ninth Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court, having clerked for judges on both courts. Introducing Ninth Circuit Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain’s Hallows Lecture one year ago, Dean Kearney noted,

Over the past couple of decades, Judge O’Scannlain has emerged as a leader on the Ninth Circuit. This includes the court’s most important work, its cases, where Judge O’Scannlain plays an unusually important role not only in his own docket but also in the court’s en-banc process. An O’Scannlain dissent from denial of en-banc rehearing frequently gets some attention across the country — in Washington, D.C.

Lo and behold, this past Sunday the Los Angeles Times carried a story highlighting how conservatives on the Ninth Circuit use dissents from denial of en-banc rehearing to send “a signal flare to the U.S. Supreme Court.” Carol Williams’ report gives particular attention to Judge O’Scannlain:

Continue ReadingBeach Reading?

Stealthy or Shifty Tort Change

Much media has been given to the so-called “stimulus package” recently passed and signed into law without members of Congress or the President knowing fully what was contained in the over 1500 pages.  Evidently, no one read the whole bill before taking the decisive action.

A similar approach seems to be occurring here in Wisconsin.  Buried in the governor’s budget bill (A 75 2009-2010 Legislature), at pages 1588 and 1605, are significant modifications of state tort law that have as much to do with the state budget as chewing gum has to do with nuclear fusion.

Section 3223 of the bill contains a provision requiring the court to explain to a jury “the effect on awards and liabilities of the percentage of negligence found by the jury to be attributable to each party.”  Translation: “If you find the plaintiff more negligent than that rich old defendant, the plaintiff and his or her lawyer won’t recover a dime!”  Aren’t juries supposed to be finders of fact and not charity institutions?

Section 3271 of the bill changes the Wisconsin comparative negligence rule in two significant respects. 

Continue ReadingStealthy or Shifty Tort Change