Print
Article
86 Special
Dismissing Decisional Independence Suits
Jennifer Nou
Professor, The University of Chicago Law School.

Many thanks to Saul Levmore for helpful comments. Benjamin Kloss provided excellent research assistance.

Administrative adjudication is poised for avulsive change. The Supreme Court recently pronounced some administrative law judges (ALJs) constitutional officers that must be appointed by the President, a department head, or a court of law.

Print
Article
86 Special
Posner’s Unlikely Patent Intervention
Jonathan S. Masur
John P. Wilson Professor of Law and David and Celia Hilliard Research Scholar, The University of Chicago Law School.

I thank Saul Levmore for helpful comments; Ashley Kang and Savannah West for excellent research assistance; and the David and Celia Hilliard Fund and the Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz Program in Behavioral Law & Economics for support.

At first glance, patent law might seem the least likely place to look for Judge Richard Posner’s impact on the law.

Print
Essay
86 Special
Posner on Tax: The Independent Investor Test
Yair Listokin
Shibley Family Fund Professor of Law, Yale Law School.

Few precedents drew Judge Posner’s ire like multifactor tests. As he said in one opinion: multifactor tests leave “much to be desired—being . . . redundant, incomplete, and unclear.”

Print
Article
86 Special
Richard Posner, the Decline of the Common Law, and the Negligence Principle
Saul Levmore
William B. Graham Distinguished Service Professor, The University of Chicago Law School.

I am grateful to Lee Fennell, Daniel Hemel, Ariel Porat, and Claire Horrell for rewarding conversations and suggestions.

Richard Posner was certainly the most able judge in the history of tort law and in the development and deployment of law and economics.

Print
Article
86 Special
Posner and Class Actions
Daniel Klerman
Edward G. Lewis Professor of Law and History, USC Gould School of Law. dklerman@law.usc.edu.

The author thanks Saul Levmore for helpful comments; Haley Tuchman and P.J. Novack for excellent research assistance; Paul Moorman for outstanding library reference support; and Robert Klonoff, John Coffee, and Brian Dean Morales for sharing video of the important “Posner on Class Actions” conference that Columbia Law School hosted on March 2, 2018.

The hallmark of Judge Posner’s class action decisions is rigorous review to ensure that aggregate litigation serves the best interests of class members and does not unduly pressure defendants to settle.

Print
Essay
86 Special
Judges and Judgment: In Praise of Instigators
Kathryn Judge
Professor of Law, Columbia Law School; Research Member, European Corporate Governance Institute.

The author would like to thank John Coates, John Morley, and Quinn Curtis for helpful comments; Christian Ronald for excellent research assistance; and Lawrence Lessig and Jesse Eisinger for inspiration. Mistakes are mine alone.

This Essay is about mutual funds.

Print
Essay
86 Special
Posner on Vertical Restraints
C. Scott Hemphill
Professor of Law, New York University School of Law.

I thank Harry First, Eleanor Fox, Bert Huang, Jon Jacobson, Saul Levmore, and Tim Wu for helpful comments. Alex Gelb, Tim Keegan, Alison Perry, and Phantila Phataraprasit provided outstanding research assistance.

This Essay considers the influence of Richard Posner’s judicial opinions about antitrust law.

Print
Article
86 Special
Unlikely Resurrection: Richard Posner, Promissory Estoppel, and The Death of Contract
Douglas G. Baird
Harry A. Bigelow Distinguished Service Professor, The University of Chicago Law School

I thank Saul Levmore for his thoughtful comments. The Frank Greenberg Fund provided generous research support for this Essay.

Many of Richard Posner’s opinions boldly confront great questions. But equally important are those that, in the aggregate, illuminate discrete areas of the law and make them easier to understand.

Print
Article
86 Special
Foreword
Lawrence Lessig
Roy L. Furman Professor of Law and Leadership, Harvard Law School

Richard Posner is the most prolific federal judge and academic in the history of American law.

Print
Comment
86.4
The Underlying Underwriter: An Analysis of the Spotify Direct Listing
Benjamin J. Nickerson
AB 2015, The University of Chicago; JD Candidate 2020, The University ofChicago Law School.

I wish to thank Nicholas B. Aeppel, Douglas G. Baird, William A. Birdthistle, Anthony J. Casey, Ryan D. Doerfler, Thomas J. Miles, and the editors of The University of Chicago Law Review for their thoughtful guidance and advice.

On April 3, 2018, global music streaming company Spotify Technology S.A. (Spotify) went public through a direct listing of its ordinary shares on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). Rather than raise money by issuing new shares to the public through a traditional initial public offering (IPO), Spotify made its existing shares available for purchase on the public exchange through the seldom-utilized direct listing process.

Print
Comment
86.4
Partially Tribal Land: The Case for Limiting State Eminent Domain Power under 25 USC § 357
Addison W. Bennett
BA 2016, Skidmore College; JD Candidate 2020, The University of Chicago Law School.

When a state government pursues a utility project, utility lines must often cross land owned by private individuals. Though the state’s power to condemn property is ordinarily sufficient to allow the government to construct such a line through the property, special difficulty emerges when the utility lines are to cross tribal lands.