v88.2

Print
Article
v88.2
The Corpus and the Critics
Thomas R. Lee
Associate Chief Justice of the Utah Supreme Court and Distinguished Lecturer in Law at Brigham Young University J. Reuben Clark Law School, Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law School, and Lecturer in Law at The University of Chicago Law School.

The authors acknowledge the editorial input of James Heilpern and Benjamin Lee, who contributed to an early draft of this paper, and express thanks to those who commented on earlier drafts or offered insights in response to presentations in various conferences, symposia, and talks. Thanks to the Association of American Law Schools and Brigham Young University, who each sponsored conference sessions at which the ideas in this piece were initially vetted. Thanks also to Seth Cannon, Brian Casper, Dante Chambers, Spencer Crawford, Josh Jones, Zachary Lutz, Christopher Melling, Elizabeth Nielson, Monick Perone, Jackson Skinner, and Kyle Tanner for their able research assistance.

Stephen C. Mouritsen
Shareholder at Parr Brown Gee & Loveless and Adjunct Professor at Brigham Young University J. Reuben Clark Law School.

A decade ago we proposed the use of the tools of corpus linguistics in the interpretation of legal language.

Print
Article
v88.2
Competing Algorithms for Law: Sentencing, Admissions, and Employment
Saul Levmore
William B. Graham Distinguished Service Professor of Law, The University of Chicago Law School.

We benefited from discussions with colleagues at a University of Chicago Law School workshop and with Concetta Balestra Fagan and Eliot Levmore.

Frank Fagan
Associate Professor of Law, EDHEC Business School, France.

When the past is thought to predict the future, it is unsurprising that machine learning, with access to large data sets, wins prediction contests when competing against an individual, including a judge. Just as computers predict next week’s weather better than any human working alone, at least one study shows that machine learning can make better decisions than can judges when deciding whether or not to grant bail.

Print
Article
v88.2
The Missing Indian Affairs Clause
Lorianne Updike Toler
Olin Searle Fellow, Yale Law School’s Information Society Project.

This Article is dedicated to my former law professor, Larry Echo Hawk, a member of the Pawnee Nation and Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Indian Affairs for President Barack Obama. I am greatly indebted to those who have provided helpful insights and comments on earlier drafts and underlying research, including Akhil Amar, Jack Balkin, William Baude, Steve Calabresi, Bradford Clark, Nicholas Cole, William Ewald, Lawrence Friedman, Shlomo Klapper, David Landau, Soren Schmidt, Michalyn Steele, Larry Solum, and Kevin Worthen. I thank my parents, John B. Updike and V. Lauri Updike, for acting as technical editors, and the very able editors of The University of Chicago Law Review. My heartfelt thanks also goes to Lee Arnold at the Historical Society of Pennsylvania for providing access to James Wilson’s Papers and particularly his drafts of the Constitution, and to Julie Miller, Julie Biggs, and Jennifer Evers from the Conservation Division of the Library of Congress for providing images and doing further forensic research of Randolph’s sketch. Finally, my thanks go to the indispensable Yale Law librarians, who never cease to lend valuable and timely assistance.

Billy Jo Lara, a Turtle Mountain Native American, struck a federal officer on the Spirit Lake Reservation.

Print
Essay
v88.2
Classaction.gov
Amanda M. Rose
Professor of Law, Vanderbilt University Law School.

For helpful comments and conversations, I would like to thank Lynn Baker, Ben Berry, Brian Broughman, Elizabeth Cabraser, Brian Fitzpatrick, Todd Hilsee, Lee Kovarsky, Craig Lewis, Debbie Matties, Robert Mikos, David Siffert, Charlie Silver, Randall Thomas, Yesha Yadav, participants and panelists at the FTC’s workshop on Consumers and Class Action Notices, participants at Vanderbilt Law School’s 22nd Annual Law & Business Conference, and students enrolled in the University of Texas’s Colloquium on Current Issues in Complex Litigation. I am grateful to Regan Vicknair for excellent research assistance.

Class actions, brought on an opt-out basis under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) and state analogues, are highly controversial.