Harvard Law Review 2020
Publication details: Cambridge Harvard Law Review Association 2020 Edition: Vol.133Description: Part No.1 Pg: 1 to 1510 & Part No.2 Pg 1511 to 2660 25cmISBN: 0017811XSubject(s): Constitutionalism, First Amendment, Forth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Eighth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, Federalism, Free Speech, Civil Procedure, AntiTrust, International Law, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Cyber Law, Civil Rights Litigation, Fair Housing, Administrative Law, -- United States of America (U.S.A.)DDC classification: 347.05 Online resources: Click here to access onlineItem type | Home library | Collection | Call number | Materials specified | Vol info | Copy number | Status | Date due | Barcode |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
V.M. Salgaocar College of Law, Miramar - Panaji | Non-fiction | 347.05 HLR/2020/V.133/2 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | Vol.133 Part No. 2 | 1 | Available (Restricted Access) | VMS-022753 | ||
![]() |
V.M. Salgaocar College of Law, Miramar - Panaji | Non-fiction | 347.05 HLR/2020/V.133/1 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | Vol.133 Part No.1 | 1 | Available (Restricted Access) | VMS-022752 |
Browsing V.M. Salgaocar College of Law, Miramar - Panaji shelves, Collection: Non-fiction Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
![]() |
![]() |
No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | ||
346.066 MYN/Com Company Law (Companies act, 2013) [as amended by Act No.29 of 2020 and the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016] | 346.066 MYN/Com Company Law (Companies act, 2013) [as amended by Act No.29 of 2020 and the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016] | 347.05 HLR/2020/V.133/1 Harvard Law Review 2020 | 347.05 HLR/2020/V.133/2 Harvard Law Review 2020 | 347.05 HLR/2021/134/ Harvard Law Review 2021 | 347.05 HLR/2021/134/1 Harvard Law Review 2021 | 347.06 KRI/Evi Law of Evidence As amended by the Criminal Law (Amendment) act, 2018 (22 of 2018) |
Harvard Law Review Vol.133
Part 1 : VMS-022752 Pg: 1-1510p.
Part 2 : VMS-022753 Pg: 1511-2660p.
Harvard Law Review 2020
RC/28 dt:19/12/2020
Payment Details
DD.No: 617140 dt: 05/02/2021 Amt Rs: 20527/-
• Abolition Constitutionalism
Dorothy E. Roberts
ESSAY
• The Solicitor General and the Shadow Docket
Stephen I. Vladeck
COMMENTS
• Delegation and Interpretive Discretion: Gundy, Kisor, and the Formation and Future of Administrative Law
Aditya Bamzai
• Categorical Mistakes: The Flawed Framework of the Armed Career Criminal Act and Mandatory Minimum Sentencing
Rachel E. Barkow
LEADING CASES
• Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill
• Rucho v. Common Cause
• American Legion v. American Humanist Ass’n
• Nieves v. Bartlett
• Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck
• Iancu v. Brunetti
• Mitchell v. Wisconsin
• Gamble v. United States
• Knick v. Township of Scott
• Bucklew v. Precythe
• Timbs v. Indiana
• Flowers v. Mississippi
• Franchise Tax Board v. Hyatt
• Department of Commerce v. New York
• Apple Inc. v. Pepper
• Nielsen v. Preap
• Herrera v. Wyoming
ARTICLES
• Free Speech and Justified True Belief
Joseph Blocher
• A Skeptical View of Information Fiduciaries
ARTICLES
Free Speech and Justified True BeliefJoseph Blocher
A Skeptical View of Information FiduciariesDavid E. Pozen & Lina M. Khan
Solitary Confinement in the Young RepublicDavid M. Shapiro
NOTES
Of Priests, Pupils, and Procedure: The Ministerial Exception as a Cause Of Action for On-Campus Student Ministries
The Sovereign Self-Preservation Doctrine in Environmental Law
A Shield for David and a Sword Against Goliath: Protecting Association While Combatting Dark Money Through Proportionality
Vertical Shareholding
RECENT CASES
Davis v. Guam
Wilson v. Safelite Group, Inc.
Martin v. City of Boise
Sims v. Hyatte
Jordan v. Commissioner, Mississippi Department of Corrections
State v. Arlene’s Flowers, Inc.
RECENT PROPOSED JUDGMENT
Proposed Final Judgment, United States v. Deutsche Telekom AG
TRIBUTE
Justice John Paul Stevens
Alison J. Nathan, Christopher L. Eisgruber, David Barron, Eduardo M. Peñalver, John G. Roberts Jr. & Olatunde C.A. Johnson
ARTICLES
Race, Pregnancy, and the Opioid Epidemic: White Privilege and the Criminalization of Opioid Use During PregnancyKhiara M. Bridges
Neoclassical Administrative LawJeffrey A. Pojanowski
The Lost History of the “Universal” InjunctionMila Sohoni
BOOK REVIEW
A Four-Decade Perspective on Life Inside the Supreme CourtGeoffrey R. Stone
NOTE
Pack the Union: A Proposal to Admit New States for the Purpose of Amending the Constitution to Ensure Equal Representation
RECENT CASES
Baca v. Colorado Department of State
Brakebill v. Jaeger
United States v. Flute
In re U.S. Office of Personnel Management Data Security Breach Litigation
Kashef v. BNP Paribas S.A.
Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington v. U.S. Department of Justice
Elster v. City of Seattle
RECENT INDICTMENT
Indictment, United States v. Joseph
ARTICLES
Property and ProjectionMaureen E. Brady
Go-Shops RevisitedAnnie Zhao & Guhan Subramanian
BOOK REVIEW
Economies of SurveillanceAziz Z. Huq & Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar
NOTES
The Establishment Clause and the Chilling Effect
Wielding Antidiscrimination Law to Suppress the Movement for Palestinian Rights
The Support or Advocacy Clause of § 1985(3)
Executive Adjudication of State Law
RECENT CASES
FTC v. Credit Bureau Center, LLC
United States v. Schmidt
Overbey v. Mayor of Baltimore
Bowers v. United States Parole Commission
Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. v. Lincoln Property Co.
Bryan v. United States
Colorado Department of Labor & Employment v. Dami Hospitality, LLC
RECENT ADJUDICATION
Matter of L-E-A-
ARTICLES
Adjudication Outside Article IIIWilliam Baude
The New Presumption Against ExtraterritorialityWilliam S. Dodge
BOOK REVIEW
The End of Antitrust History RevisitedLina M. Khan
NOTES
Constitutional Privacy and the Fight Over Access to Sex-Segregated Spaces
Controller Confusion: Realigning Controlling Stockholders and Controlled Boards
Making Chinese Court Filings Public? Some Not-So-Foreign American Insights
RECENT CASES
In re Hyundai & Kia Fuel Economy Litigation
Kelsay v. Ernst
Agnew v. Government of the District of Columbia
Fazaga v. FBI
Perez v. Abbott
Save America’s Clocks, Inc. v. City of New York
Taylor v. Burlington Northern Railroad Holdings, Inc.
RECENT LEGISLATION
H.R. 1, 116th Cong. (2019)
RECENT PUBLICATIONS
ARTICLES
The Prisoner TradeEmma Kaufman
Tax Limits and the Future of Local DemocracyAriel Jurow Kleiman
BOOK REVIEWS
On Trust, Law, and Expecting the WorstElizabeth F. Emens
Can Rights Combat Economic Inequality?Mila Versteeg
DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LAW
Introduction
The Intellectual History of Unjust Enrichment
The Future of Restitution and Equity in the Distribution of Funds Recovered from Ponzi Schemes and Other Multi-Victim Frauds
Restitution at Home: Unjust Compensation for Unmarried Cohabitants’ Domestic Labor
Aloha ‘Āina: Native Hawaiian Land Restitution
RECENT CASES
First Amendment Coalition of Arizona, Inc. v. Ryan
Hernandez v. United States
Semple v. Griswold
Zuckerman v. Metropolitan Museum of Art
EMW Women’s Surgical Center, P.S.C. v. Beshear
White v. Square, Inc.
RECENT PUBLICATIONS
ARTICLE
The New MaternityCourtney Megan Cahill
BOOK REVIEW
Implicit Bias in the Age of TrumpCharles R. Lawrence III
NOTES
Two Models of the Right to Not Speak
Accession on the Frontiers of Property
RECENT CASES
United States v. Hill
Fowler v. Benson
In re: S.K.
State v. VanBuren
RECENT LEGISLATION
Assemb. B. 5, 2019–2020 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Cal. 2019)
TRIBUTE
Professor David L. Shapiro
Amanda L. Tyler, Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Charles Fried, John F. Manning, Richard H. Fallon Jr. & Ruth Bader Ginsburg
ARTICLE
Expungement of Criminal Convictions: An Empirical StudyJ.J. Prescott & Sonja B. Starr
NOTES
Antitrust Federalism, Preemption, and Judge-Made Law
The Potential-Use Test and the Northwest Passage
RECENT CASES
Bigger v. Facebook, Inc.
Kollaritsch v. Michigan State University Board of Trustees
United States v. Cano
NLRB v. International Ass’n of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental, & Reinforcing Iron Workers, Local 229
In re: Application to Obtain Discovery for Use in Foreign Proceedings
Doe I v. Nestle, S.A.
United States v. Huskisson
The Harvard Law Review is a student-run organization whose primary purpose is to publish a journal of legal scholarship. The Review comes out monthly from November through June and has roughly 2,500 pages per volume. The organization is formally independent of the Harvard Law School. Student editors make all editorial and organizational decisions and, together with a professional business staff of three, carry out day-to-day operations.
Aside from serving as an important academic forum for legal scholarship, the Review has two other goals. First, the journal is designed to be an effective research tool for practicing lawyers and students of the law. Second, it provides opportunities for Review members to develop their own editing and writing skills. Accordingly, each issue contains pieces by student editors as well as outside authors.
The Review publishes articles by professors, judges, and practitioners and solicits reviews of important recent books from recognized experts. All articles — even those by the most respected authorities — are subjected to a rigorous editorial process designed to sharpen and strengthen substance and tone.
Most student writing takes the form of Notes, Recent Cases, and Recent Legislation. Notes are approximately 22 pages and are usually written by third-year students. Recent Cases and Recent Legislation are normally 8 pages and are written mainly by second-year students. Recent Cases are comments on recent decisions by courts other than the U.S. Supreme Court, such as state supreme courts, federal circuit courts, federal district courts, and foreign courts. Recent Legislation look at new statutes at either the state or federal level.
Student-written pieces also appear in the special November and April issues. In addition to the Supreme Court Foreword (usually by a prominent constitutional law scholar), faculty Case Comments, and a compilation of statistics about the Court’s previous Term, the November issue includes about 20 Leading Cases, which are analyses by third-year students of the most important decisions of the previous Supreme Court Term. The April issue features the annual Developments in the Law, an in-depth treatment of an important area of the law prepared by third-year editors of the Review.
There are no comments on this title.