Article

Print
Article
86.6
Clarity Doctrines
Richard M. Re
Professor, UCLA School of Law.

Many thanks to Will Baude, Pamela Bookman, Dan Epps, Barry Friedman, Mark Greenberg, Josia Klein, Anita Krishnakumar, Maggie Lemos, Marin Levy, Leah Litman, Michael Morley, Anne Joseph O’Connell, Larry Rosenthal, Steve Sachs, Joanna Schwartz, Dan Schweitzer, Mila Sohoni, and participants in the St. John’s Faculty Workshop and the Duke Law School Judicial Administration/Judicial Process Roundtable. I am also grateful to Caleb Peiffer and Taylor Pitz for excellent research assistance, and to the superb editors of The University of Chicago Law Review.

Legal practice is riddled with claims about when the law is or isn’t “clear.” If a statute is unclear or ambiguous, a court might defer to an agency, side in favor of lenity, or avoid interpretations that would render the statute unconstitutional.

Print
Article
86.5
Remedies for Robots
Mark A. Lemley
William H. Neukom Professor of Law, Stanford Law School; partner, Durie Tangri LLP.

Thanks to Ryan Abbott, Ryan Calo, Rebecca Crootof, James Grimmelmann, Rose Hagan, Dan Ho, Bob Rabin, Omri Rachum-Twaig, Andrew Selbst, and participants in workshops at Stanford Law School and the We Robot 2018 Conference for comments and discussions.

Bryan Casey
Lecturer in Law, Stanford Law School; Legal Fellow, Center for Automotive Research at Stanford (CARS).

Engineers training an artificially intelligent self-flying drone were perplexed.

Print
Article
86.5
Criminal Law in a Civil Guise: The Evolution of Family Courts and Support Laws
Elizabeth D. Katz
Associate Professor of Law, Washington University in St. Louis.

Support from the Stanford Center for Law and History and especially faculty director Amalia Kessler was invaluable as I completed this Article. For helpful comments and conversations, I thank Gregory Ablavsky, Kerry Abrams, Monique Abrishami, Susan Appleton, Ralph Richard Banks, Tomiko Brown-Nagin, Katie Cole, Beth Colgan, Nancy F. Cott, Samuel Ennis, George Fisher, Barbara Fried, Lawrence Friedman, Robert W. Gordon, Howard Kaufman, Zachary D. Kaufman, Adriaan Lanni, Jessica Lowe, Kenneth W. Mack, Bernadette Meyler, Melissa Murray, Kelly Phipps, Eli Russell, Christopher Schmidt, Sarah Seo, David Sklansky, Ji Seon Song, Norman Spaulding, Emily Stolzenberg, Mark Storslee, Charles Tyler, Lael Weinberger, Robert Weisberg, John Wertheimer, and participants in the Stanford Law School Fellows Workshop, the Stanford Legal Studies Workshop, and the Family Law Scholars and Teachers Conference. Librarians at Harvard University and Stanford Law School and archivists at the Columbia University Rare Book & Manuscript Library provided excellent assistance. Research for this Article was generously supported by the American Historical Association’s Albert J. Beveridge Grant; the American Society for Legal History’s William Nelson Cromwell Foundation Fellowship; Harvard’s Center for American Political Studies Dissertation Fellowship and Seed Grant; and Harvard Kennedy School of Government’s History and Public Policy Initiative in the Ash Center for Democratic Governance.

In the 2011 case of Turner v Rogers, the United States Supreme Court held that a father jailed for a year by a family court judge for nonpayment of child support was not entitled to a public defender.

Print
Article
86 Special
On Posner on Copyright
Tim Wu
Julius Silver Professor of Law, Science, and Technology at Columbia Law School.

The judiciary are different than you and me, not just because they have life tenure, but because they spend years being petitioned by real people.

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
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
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.