FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W126250377> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W126250377 endingPage "834" @default.
• W126250377 startingPage "821" @default.
• W126250377 abstract "INTRODUCTIONIn his foreword to Michigan Law Review's 2009 Survey of Books Related to Law, my former Duke colleague Erwin Chemerinsky posed question: [W]hy should law professors write?1 In answering, Erwin took as a starting point well-known criticisms of legal that Judge Harry Edwards published in this journal in 1992.2Judge Edwards indicted legal scholars for failing to engage problems facing lawyers and judges, writing instead for benefit of scholars in law and other disciplines rather than for their professional audiences.3 He characterized practical legal as both prescriptive (aiming to instruct attorneys, judges, and other decisionmakers) and (dealing with sources of law that constrain and guide practitioners, decisionmakers, and policymakers).4 Having served on law faculties at Michigan and Harvard before joining Court of Appeals for District of Columbia,5 Judge Edwards was well positioned to critique direction of legal but he is not only judge to have done so. In recent years Chief Justice Roberts has made clear his opinion of most academic writing,6 and Justice Kennedy has pointedly expressed his concerns about diminishing relevance of law reviews to appellate court decisionmaking. 7Edwards characterized legal treatise as [t]he paradigm of 'practical' legal scholarship, and listed several classic examples of treatises that answered his concerns.8 For Edwards, all were that create an interpretive framework; categorize mass of legal authorities in terms of this framework; interpret closely various authoritative texts within each category; and thereby demonstrate for judges or practitioners what 'the law' requires.9 However, he neither discussed individual treatises he cited before moving on to other matters, nor expanded on why treatise has been so important to American lawyers.Chemerinsky eloquently defended value of written for academic audiences and others beyond judiciary and bar,10 but agreed with Edwards that doctrinal is much less valued today than in prior generations.11 He noted that law professors still continue to write legal treatises that describe and critique legal doctrines,12 but also wondered when editors of Michigan Law Review had last chosen a casebook or legal treatise for inclusion in annual Book Review issue.13 In following year's foreword to Book Review issue, Eugene Volokh described how electronic-book technologies would change books related to law, but he explicitly omitted from his speculations such characteristically legal publications as treatises and other books aimed at practitioners.14Edwards's comments regarding continuing value of legal treatises likely raised a eyebrows. A.W.B. Simpson and Morton Horwitz had each already chronicled decline of American legal treatise,15 and Lawrence Friedman had written that [m]ost 19th-century treatises were barren enough reading when they first appeared, and would be sheer torture for reader today.16 Friedman's writings on American legal history have generally offered only grudging acknowledgement of efforts of treatise writers. In 2002 he pointed out that, although research had been the heart of legal scholarship for most of twentieth century, even highly regarded major treatises were elephantine works that tied together vast masses of cases, giving them some kind of coherence, real or imaginary. 17 Friedman also noted with apparent satisfaction that by 1980s there were law professors who actually wrote real books.18 Most likely, these books were of sort Edwards would view as being of little use to practitioners and judges.In Law Books in Action, their 2012 collection of essays devoted to Anglo-American legal treatise, Angela Fernandez and Markus Dubber conclude that while form remains popular in other common law countries, few if any legal scholars in United States today wake up filled with a burning desire to devote their professional lives to production of a treatise. …" @default.
• W126250377 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W126250377 creator A5055189140 @default.
• W126250377 date "2013-04-01" @default.
• W126250377 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W126250377 title "Oh, the Treatise!" @default.
• W126250377 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
• W126250377 type Work @default.
• W126250377 sameAs 126250377 @default.
• W126250377 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W126250377 countsByYear W1262503772015 @default.
• W126250377 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W126250377 hasAuthorship W126250377A5055189140 @default.
• W126250377 hasConcept C100701532 @default.
• W126250377 hasConcept C131330614 @default.
• W126250377 hasConcept C139621336 @default.
• W126250377 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W126250377 hasConcept C149209484 @default.
• W126250377 hasConcept C158154518 @default.
• W126250377 hasConcept C162723807 @default.
• W126250377 hasConcept C167633797 @default.
• W126250377 hasConcept C170692843 @default.
• W126250377 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W126250377 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W126250377 hasConcept C2776502561 @default.
• W126250377 hasConcept C2777421848 @default.
• W126250377 hasConcept C2778061430 @default.
• W126250377 hasConcept C522695570 @default.
• W126250377 hasConcept C75011936 @default.
• W126250377 hasConceptScore W126250377C100701532 @default.
• W126250377 hasConceptScore W126250377C131330614 @default.
• W126250377 hasConceptScore W126250377C139621336 @default.
• W126250377 hasConceptScore W126250377C144024400 @default.
• W126250377 hasConceptScore W126250377C149209484 @default.
• W126250377 hasConceptScore W126250377C158154518 @default.
• W126250377 hasConceptScore W126250377C162723807 @default.
• W126250377 hasConceptScore W126250377C167633797 @default.
• W126250377 hasConceptScore W126250377C170692843 @default.
• W126250377 hasConceptScore W126250377C17744445 @default.
• W126250377 hasConceptScore W126250377C199539241 @default.
• W126250377 hasConceptScore W126250377C2776502561 @default.
• W126250377 hasConceptScore W126250377C2777421848 @default.
• W126250377 hasConceptScore W126250377C2778061430 @default.
• W126250377 hasConceptScore W126250377C522695570 @default.
• W126250377 hasConceptScore W126250377C75011936 @default.
• W126250377 hasIssue "6" @default.
• W126250377 hasLocation W1262503771 @default.
• W126250377 hasOpenAccess W126250377 @default.
• W126250377 hasPrimaryLocation W1262503771 @default.
• W126250377 hasRelatedWork W1492079784 @default.
• W126250377 hasRelatedWork W1542229511 @default.
• W126250377 hasRelatedWork W1868157597 @default.
• W126250377 hasRelatedWork W2087383546 @default.
• W126250377 hasRelatedWork W2263136512 @default.
• W126250377 hasRelatedWork W2283522837 @default.
• W126250377 hasRelatedWork W2302726147 @default.
• W126250377 hasRelatedWork W2316962174 @default.
• W126250377 hasRelatedWork W2330587166 @default.
• W126250377 hasRelatedWork W2530582297 @default.
• W126250377 hasRelatedWork W255136951 @default.
• W126250377 hasRelatedWork W2618628875 @default.
• W126250377 hasRelatedWork W2801838287 @default.
• W126250377 hasRelatedWork W2890942939 @default.
• W126250377 hasRelatedWork W2914419089 @default.
• W126250377 hasRelatedWork W3125815058 @default.
• W126250377 hasRelatedWork W3125868189 @default.
• W126250377 hasRelatedWork W3125969767 @default.
• W126250377 hasRelatedWork W592624327 @default.
• W126250377 hasRelatedWork W1907212174 @default.
• W126250377 hasVolume "111" @default.
• W126250377 isParatext "false" @default.
• W126250377 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W126250377 magId "126250377" @default.
• W126250377 workType "article" @default.