[blindLaw] Schools of Jurisprudence

Wed Oct 13 02:00:02 UTC 2021

I will try to give them a read in the next few days and let you know if I need more!

Thanks,
Tom

Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows

From: Teresita Rios via BlindLaw<mailto:blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2021 9:01 PM
To: Blind Law Mailing List<mailto:blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
Cc: Teresita Rios<mailto:teresitarios22 at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Schools of Jurisprudence

Dear Tom,
I reached out to Notre Dame Law's Professors of Juris prudence. Professor
Jeffry Pojonowski and Professor Sherif Girgis.

This is what they sent me for you.
(1) Steven D. Smith, Law’s Quandary.

- Oliver Wendell Holmes, The Path of the Law, 10 HARV. L. REV. 457 (1897)
- Harry R. Blythe, A Theory, 22 GREEN BAG 193 (1910)
- Arthur Leff, Unspeakable Ethics, Unnatural Law, 1979 DUKE L.J 1229

II. LEGAL REALISM
- Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., 150 P.2d 436 (Cal. 1944).
- Herman Oliphant, A Return to Stare Decisis, 14 AM. BAR. ASS’N J. 71 (1928)
- NCTA v. Brand X, 545 U.S. 967 (2005) (op. of Thomas, J.).
- Max Radin, Statutory Interpretation, 43 HARV. L. REV. 863 (1930).
- Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 (1991) (ops. of Rehnquist, C.J. and
Marshall, J.).
- Thomas Reid Powell, The Logic and Rhetoric of Constitutional Law, 15 J.
PHIL. PSYCH. &
SCI. METHODS 645 (1918) .

- Brian Leiter, American Legal Realism, in BLACKWELL GUIDE TO THE
PHILOSOPHY OF
LAW AND LEGAL THEORY .

III. LAW AS RULES
- Thing v. La Chusa, 771 P.2d 814 (Cal. 1989) (op. of Eagleson, J.)
- LARRY ALEXANDER & EMILY SHERWIN, DEMYSTIFYING LEGAL REASONING (2008),
pp. 31–50
- Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 487 U.S. 312 (1988).
- Frederick Schauer, Statutory Construction and the Coordination Function
of Plain Meaning,
1990 THE SUPREME CT. REV. 231
- McDonald v. Smith, 472 U.S. 479 (1985)
- Larry Alexander, Originalism, the Why and the What, 82 FORDHAM L. REV.
539 (2013).
- Larry Alexander, “With Me, It’s All Er Nuthin’”: Formalism in Law and
Morality, 66 U.
CHI. L. REV. 530, 530–55 (1999).

IV. LAW AS PRINCIPLES
- MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382 (N.Y.1916) (opinion of
Cardozo, J.).
- Ronald Dworkin, Hard Cases, 88 HARV. L. REV. 1057, 1058–65, 1087–1101
(1975)
- Riggs v. Palmer, 22 N.E. 188 (1889).
- Ronald Dworkin, How to Read the Civil Rights Act, in A MATTER OF
PRINCIPLE (1985),
pp. 316–31
• : Constitution
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) (op. of Stevens, J.)
- Ronald Dworkin, The Moral Reading of the Constitution, N.Y. REVIEW OF
BOOKS (Mar.
21, 1996)

- RONALD DWORKIN, LAW’S EMPIRE (1986), pp. 254–71; 407–13

V. LAW AS TRADITIONAL PRACTICE
- Smith v. United States Casuality Co., 90 N.E. 947 (1910)
- Sotelo v. DirectRevenue, Inc., 384 F.Supp.2d 1219 (N.D. Ill. 2005) (omit
discussion
sections I, II, IV, & VII).

 - A.W.B. Simpson, The Common Law and Legal Theory

 - Bond v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 2077 (2014) (op. of Roberts, C.J.).

- Martin Krygier, The Traditionality of Statutes, 1 RATIO JURIS 20 (1988)
• The Constitution
- Am. Legion v. Am. Humanist Ass’n, 139 S. Ct. 2067 (2019)

- Marc O. DeGirolami, First Amendment Traditionalism, 97 WASH U. L. REV.
1653 (2020)

VI. NATURAL LAW THEORY
-  Pavesich v. New England Life Ins. Co., 50 S.E. 68 (Ga. 1905)
- John Finnis, The Fairy Tale’s Moral, 115 L.Q. REV. 170 (1999)
-  King v. Burwell, 135 S.Ct. 2480 (2015) (op. of Roberts, C.J.).
- RICHARD EKINS, THE NATURE OF LEGISLATIVE INTENT 219–24, 230–36, 244–49
(2012)

- Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) (ops. of Douglas & Black).
- Stephen Macedo, The Inescapability of Natural Law, 5 BENCHMARK 117 (1991)
 - Jeffrey A. Pojanowski, Why Would Anyone Be an Originalist? 31 DCPE
ONLINE 582
(2017) (available at
http://www.dpceonline.it/index.php/dpceonline/article/view/429/418).

 - JOHN FINNIS, NATURAL LAW AND NATURAL RIGHTS (2d ed. 2011) 281–90 (book)
 - RICHARD POSNER, A Pragmatist Manifesto, in THE PROBLEMS OF JURISPRUDENCE
(1990) (book) pages 459–69
 - Albert Alschuler, From Blackstone to Holmes: The Revolt against Natural
Law, 36
PEPPERDINE L. REV. 491 (2009).

--------------------------------------------------
I hope you have fun!

Warmly,
Teresita Rios.

On Sun, Oct 10, 2021 at 2:29 AM Thomas Dukeman via BlindLaw <
blindlaw at nfbnet.org> wrote:

> Hello there fellow Legal Beagles!
>
> I was wondering if anyone knows of any important writers/thinkers from the
> various major schools of legal thought worth brushing up on and getting to
> know better? I am looking for names to look up as well as any of their
> major lectures or landmark decisions they may have passed as well as any
> lengthy books they may have published on the field of jurisprudence. I am
> looking for both those who laid the foundation for their school as well as
> those who continue to carry out its legacy both in practice and personal
> lives.
>
> Thanks!
> Tom
>
> Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows
>
> _______________________________________________
> BlindLaw mailing list
> BlindLaw at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> BlindLaw:
>
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/teresitarios22%40gmail.com
>
_______________________________________________
BlindLaw mailing list
BlindLaw at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/thomasdukeman%40outlook.com