JournalTOCs

Tulsa Law Review
Number of Followers: 1

This is an Open Access Journal

Open Access journal
ISSN (Print) 1538-9979
Published by U of Tulsa

[1 journal]

All in: A Proposal for Uniform Homeschool Access to Public School
Extracurriculars in Texas and Similar "Half-way" States
- Authors: Matthew Amunrud
  PubDate: Thu, 25 Jul 2024 14:48:37 PDT
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Authentic Development: Fulfilling Stare
Decisis through the Principles of St. John Henry Newman
- Authors: Chad Thurman
  PubDate: Thu, 25 Jul 2024 14:48:36 PDT
Women, the Law, and Sexual Assault: Why the Model Penal Code's
Ordinary Resolution Standard Furthers Victim Blaming
- Authors: Hillary Hurst
  PubDate: Thu, 25 Jul 2024 14:48:36 PDT
"Hi, is This Item Still Available'": Social Media as a Marketplace for
Human Skeletal Remains
- Authors: Cameron Skinner
  PubDate: Thu, 25 Jul 2024 14:48:35 PDT
Cut the Cap: Proposing Further Change to Oklahoma's Repair and Deduct
Statute
- Authors: Jacy Holbrook
  PubDate: Thu, 25 Jul 2024 14:48:35 PDT
Entertaining and Embracing Professional Identity Development in the 1L
Legal Writing Curriculum
- Authors: Charles W. Oldfield
  PubDate: Thu, 25 Jul 2024 14:48:34 PDT
Saints, Satanists, and Religious Public Charter Schools
- Authors: Allen Rostron
  PubDate: Thu, 25 Jul 2024 14:48:34 PDT
Music of the Law: A Wigmorian Playlist for a Modern Era
- Authors: Joseph Hummel
  PubDate: Thu, 25 Jul 2024 14:48:33 PDT
The Automation Paradox
- Authors: Mbilike M. Mwafulirwa
  PubDate: Thu, 25 Jul 2024 14:48:33 PDT
From Briefs to Bytes: How Generative AI is Transforming Legal Writing and
Practice
- Authors: Joe Regalia
  PubDate: Thu, 25 Jul 2024 14:48:32 PDT
Rebooting the Supreme Court
- Authors: Benjamin J. Priester
  PubDate: Thu, 25 Jul 2024 14:48:32 PDT
Administrative Law: A Contemporary Approach
- Authors: Gwendolyn Savitz et al.
  Abstract: Administrative Law: A Contemporary Approach, 4th Edition is a comprehensive reorganization and updating of the 3rd edition, written just as administrative law was becoming the centerpiece in a national discourse on governance. From 2017 forward, nothing seemed settled. What are the metes and bounds of presidential power' Of congress' Of the courts' Judicial confirmation hearings made Chevron, separation of powers, and federalism everyday concerns, but somewhere, in the core of this challenge to governance, the fundamentals of the administrative law field proved up to the task. The 4th edition provides a current, comprehensive, and apolitical presentation of the substance and promise of administrative law.
  PubDate: Wed, 17 Jul 2024 06:13:22 PDT
The Unintended Consequences of Torture's Ineffectiveness
- Authors: Russell Christopher
  Abstract: Whether torture to extract true information—for example, military secrets or the location of a terrorist-planted bomb—is morally permissible and empirically effective is widely disputed. But many agree that such torture’s effectiveness is a necessary condition for its permissibility; if ineffective, then it is impermissible. Thus, the empirical issue has become crucial in deciding the moral issue. This Article addresses the empirical issue with a novel, non-empirical argument. Torture’s ineffectiveness not only ensures torture’s impermissibility but also exposes torture victims to criminal liability for any offenses they are tortured into committing. With torture as the most extreme and horrific form of coercion, seemingly if anyone deserves eligibility for a duress defense against criminal liability, it is torture victims. But ineffective torture is ineffective coercion, and ineffective coercion fails to sufficiently coerce to support a duress defense. Therefore, an unintended consequence of torture’s ineffectiveness is its inconsistency with and preclusion of torture victims’ eligibility for a duress defense. The inconsistency between the two establishes that at least one of them is false. Seeking to resolve the inconsistency, this Article considers several modifications of the empirical claim—including torture being merely generally ineffective or ineffective only under certain conditions—and alternative formulations of the duress defense. With none of these satisfactory, a dilemma arises: either close the door on torture victims’ eligibility for a duress defense (by maintaining torture’s ineffectiveness) or open the door on the permissibility of torture (by conceding torture’s effectiveness). Neither alternative may be palatable, but (to resolve the inconsistency) one must be chosen.
  PubDate: Wed, 05 Jun 2024 11:08:20 PDT
Chapter 6: Resilient Property Theory
- Authors: Marc L. Roark et al.
  Abstract: States’ responses to ‘propertised’ resource problems go to the heart of property theory and property law, locating the governance of property - through private property rights and commons - at the forefront of current political, legal and scholarly debates. These debates are anchored in liberal theories of property, which in turn are rooted in classical liberal theories of the state. As social, economic, political and environmental transformations have re-configured the state’s public power, and private property’s power, these implications have not yet been worked through in accounts of private property law. If property theory is to make a meaningful contribution to addressing the wicked property problems that manifest in the global challenges of developing sustainable housing, financial and environmental systems, the approaches and methodologies of property scholarship, and the theories we build to understand, interpret and explain property require fresh attention. This chapter offers a new approach and methodology for thinking and talking about property law and theory, drawing insights from wicked problem theory, vulnerability theory and sustainability theories, and rooted in a realistic account of the nature of the twenty-first century nation state. Taking a methods assemblage approach, RPT avoids framing limitations that narrow the view of problems, and enables a new approach and methodology for property scholarship that focuses on the resilience needs of all stakeholders, including the state.
  PubDate: Tue, 28 May 2024 09:40:02 PDT
Chapter 7: Scaling Property Law
- Authors: Marc L. Roark et al.
  Abstract: The ‘politics of scale’ is a phrase that has come to mean the socially constructed landscape where a broad range of social, political and economic activities, including capital accumulation, state regulation and more occur. Scale itself is a concept of measurement and comparison where values increase or decrease in value based on other factors. Property is an apt area to deploy the concept around the politics of scale as property has been the subject of much academic discussion. This chapter offers a backdrop to those intersections by providing a lens for thinking across the distinctive registers of scale that property conflicts occur within. This chapter advances property methods in two distinct ways. First we identify the three registers of scale in the property context and how they shape property disputes. Property conflicts operate in the hierarchical scale (competencies) both in the ways that states empower individuals to control resources in land but also in the way states themselves regulate interests in property resources. Property can also be measured on a material register (capabilities) - or the extent, value, or length of claims in property. Finally, property operates on a rhetorical or discursive scale, where values are imposed on property claims to support individual or communal expectations of resource use. These values are often combined to validate some action on property resources. This chapter also aligns existing property scholarship within a scaled discourse by demonstrating how these three registers have been deployed to validate or invalidate action on property.
  PubDate: Tue, 28 May 2024 09:39:59 PDT
Reassessing Administrative Finality: The Importance of New Evidence and
Changed Circumstances
- Authors: Gwendolyn Savitz
  Abstract: Administrative finality of agency action is generally thought of as a method of avoiding premature judicial review—a claim that the review is too early. But it is also used to prevent judicial review by claiming that the review has now come too late. There are two primary exceptions to this prohibition: new evidence and changed circumstances. However, courts and agencies are reluctant to permit challengers to use these exceptions as often as should be statutorily allowed, an area that scholarship has been neglected.This Article fills the gap by exploring this aspect of administrative finality, looking at the important government interests the doctrine safeguards, as well as both the individual and government interests counseling against finality in these changed circumstances. It reaches the conclusion that the doctrine is being applied too strictly, examining recent cases involving both disability and immigration where it has prevented proper review of the agency decision at issue.
  PubDate: Wed, 15 May 2024 06:25:27 PDT

HOME > Browse the 73 Subjects covered by JournalTOCs
Subject	Total Journals