David A. Anderson
94 Texas L. Rev. See Also 1
In this Essay, Professor Anderson analyzes the recent Supreme Court decision Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc. and concludes that the Court’s disposition failed to address the issues presented by hybrid government–private speech.
Terry A. Maroney
93 Texas L. Rev. 317
Professor Maroney responds to Judge Wistrich, Professor Rachlinski and Professor Guthrie’s recent article on judicial emotion.
Matthew R. Christiansen, William N. Eskridge Jr. & Sam N. Thypin-Bermeo
93 Texas L. Rev. See Also 289
Mr. Christiansen, Professor Eskridge and Mr. Thypin-Bermeo respond to Mr. Buatti and Professor Hasen’s recent response to Mr. Christiansen and Professor Eskridge’s article on congressional overrides.
James Buatti & Richard L. Hasen
93 Texas L. Rev. See Also 263
Mr. Buatti and Professor Hasen respond to Mr. Christiansen and Professor Eskridge’s recent article on congressional overrides.
93 Texas L. Rev. See Also 247
Professor Gowder responds to Professor Brettschneider and Mr. McNamee’s recent article on sovereign immunity.
Brett M. Frischmann & Mark P. McKenna
93 Texas L. Rev. See Also 231
Professors Frischmann and Mckenna respond to Professor Lobel’s recent article on human capital law.
Andrew F. Tuch
93 Texas L. Rev. See Also 211
Professor Tuch responds to Professors Bratton and Wachter’s article on how Delaware courts treat conflicts of interest of investment banks in M&A transactions.
93 Texas L. Rev. See Also 203
Professor Lawson responds to Professor Calabresi and Ms. Vickery’s article on the original understanding of Lockean natural rights guarantees.
Jonathan Remy Nash
93 Texas L. Rev. See Also 189
Professor Nash reviews Professor Fallon’s recent article on the doctrine of standing.
93 Texas L. Rev. See Also 173
William Savitt responds to Professors Fisch, Griffith, and Davidoff Solomon’s article on disclosure-only settlements in M&A litigation.