{"id":7465,"date":"2007-04-11T15:00:25","date_gmt":"2007-04-11T20:00:25","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2007\/04\/11\/top-twenty-law-review-articles-of-"},"modified":"2011-08-05T14:53:50","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T18:53:50","slug":"top-twenty-law-review-articles-of-all-time","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2007\/04\/11\/top-twenty-law-review-articles-of-all-time\/","title":{"rendered":"top twenty law review articles of all time"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u00a0\"ProfPointer\"\u00a0The new issue of Harvard Law Bulletin<\/em> (Spring 2007) has an interesting discussion of <\/em>The Canon of American Legal Thought<\/em><\/a>\u00a0(Princeton University Press, Nov. 2006), which is edited and annotated\u00a0by Harvard Law professors David Kennedy and William W. Fisher III.\u00a0 The\u00a0936-page\u00a0compendium presents the 20 articles\u00a0the professors\u00a0“deem to have been most influential in shaping American legal thinking and a distinctly American style of reasoning across the 20th Century.”\u00a0\u00a0Titled Reviewing the Reviewers: In legal scholarship, what defines staying power?<\/a>, the HLB<\/em> article includes the sidebar Twenty for the Ages<\/a>, which lists the law review articles selected by Kennedy and Fisher.\u00a0For your convenience, we have reproduced the Top Twenty list below the fold<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"checkedBoxS\"\u00a0 <\/font>The oldest article to make the list is \u201cThe Path of the Law\u201d by Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. (1897). The most recent is \u201cIntroduction,\u201d \u201cCritical Race Theory: The Key Writings that Formed the Movement\u201d (Thomas, eds., 1996).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Professors Fisher and Kennedy divide the canon of American legal thought into eight schools of thought (e.g., Legal Realism, Law and Economics, Feminist Legal Theory).\u00a0 They found that the labels given to the schools of thought are often reduced to mere shorthand.\u00a0 I’m not at all surpised that great theories get reduced to labels, but I am a little surprised that two Legal Thought mavens have spent years studying the subject and yet, according to Prof. Kennedy:<\/p>\n

“[W]e were both struck by the intellectual sophistication with which many of the cliches of everyday legal argument were originally formulated.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\"checkedBoxN\"\u00a0I’m happy to say that I don’t have to select my\u00a0top twenty most-influentional American haiku today.\u00a0 Instead, I’ll simply share a few from the latest issue of Frogpond<\/font><\/em><\/a>, (XXX:1, Winter 2007)\u00a0<\/p>\n

a bluebird
\nwith its head turned back —
\npale evening sky<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

A doe’s leap
\ndarkens the oyster shell road:
\ntwilight<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

………………………………………… by\u00a0Peggy Willis Lyles
\n“A doe’s leap” – orig. pub. Frogpond<\/em> 1:4 (1978)<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\"QkeyNs\"\u00a0\"sKeyNs\" quickies ………….\u00a0 <\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 At LegalBlog Watch<\/em>, Carolyn Elefant reconsiders\u00a0laptops in classrooms<\/a> and decides that professors should be able to ban wireless websurfing, but not taking notes.<\/p>\n

Mom’s voice on the phone —
\ntime of the year
\nfor a surprise frost<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

daylight ended hour ago
\none more page
\nto the investigation<\/p>\n

……………….. by Gary Hotham<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\"Rumpole\"\u00a0 Over at the London Times Online<\/em>, BabyBarista<\/a><\/em> (prior post)<\/a>\u00a0almost loses his head over a missing barrister wig.\u00a0 See horsehair and honeytraps<\/a> (April 11, 2007).\u00a0 The topical pupil\u00a0barrister\u00a0also notes\u00a0his agreement with the recent proposal<\/a> to get rid of wigs in civil matters.\u00a0 Judging from some of the comments, UK lawyers may be just as keen on putting on airs as their dignity-obsessed<\/a> American brethren.<\/p>\n

\u00a0 That reminds me of a question I’ve often wanted to ask UK lawyers: Do they mind that Horace Rumpole is the most famous barrister in America?\u00a0 Is he the most famous in Britain, too?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\u00a0\"SantaList\"\u00a0\u00a0 Yes, I’m still neglecting the upkeep of our Inadvertent Searchee<\/a> pages.\u00a0 Nonetheless, I checked our Referer logs this morning and was pleased to see:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Our post wanted a law school exam prayer<\/a> came in as the first result in the Google query<\/a> “prayers for writing exams.” \u00a0 Maybe my Mama G. can now stop offering all those novenas for my wayward soul.<\/li>\n
  2. Our post what is agita<\/a> is the #1 result to the Yahoo Answers question<\/a> “What is agita?”\u00a0 If you click on our link, you’ll also find the lyrics to the Broadway Danny Rose<\/font><\/em><\/a>\u00a0song <\/font>\u201cAgita<\/strong>\u201c<\/font>\u00a0 (by <\/font>Nick Apollo Forte<\/font><\/a>).<\/font><\/font><\/li>\n
  3. Second is good enough: our posting they don’t teach humilty in law school<\/a> was the #2 rsult for the Google query<\/a> “humility in l aw.”<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    That final Searchee result is a good excuse to point you again to an article posted<\/font><\/a> on the ABA Journal <\/em>webpage in July 2003, which should be\u00a0hanging inlaw firm snack rooms around the country.\u00a0 It\u2019s called Working Together 101: Lawyers May Have the Degree, But They Can Take a Lesson From Support Staff <\/em>(dated July 24, 2003, by Stephanie Francis Ward, from the July edition of ABA Journal<\/font><\/a> <\/em>).
    \n<\/p>\n

    Here are Professor Kennedy and Fisher’s picks of the\u00a0most influential American law review articles, in chronological order:\u00a0<\/p>\n

    Twenty for the Ages<\/a>\u00a0(Harvard Law Bulletin<\/em>, Spring 2007)\u00a0<\/p>\n

    Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. LL.B. 1866, \u201cThe Path of the Law\u201d (1897).<\/p>\n

    Wesley Hohfeld LL.B. 1904, \u201cSome Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning\u201d (1913).<\/p>\n

    Robert Hale LL.B. 1909, \u201cCoercion and Distribution in a Supposedly Noncoercive State\u201d (1923).<\/p>\n

    John Dewey, \u201cLogical Method and Law\u201d (1924).\u00a0 \"checkedBoxS\"\u00a0 <\/font><\/p>\n

    Karl Llewellyn, \u201cSome Realism About Realism\u2014Responding to Dean Pound\u201d (1931).<\/p>\n

    Felix Cohen, \u201cTranscendental Nonsense and the Functional Approach\u201d (1935).<\/p>\n

    Lon L. Fuller, \u201cConsideration and Form\u201d (1941).\u00a0<\/p>\n

    Henry M. Hart Jr. \u201930 and Albert M. Sacks \u201948, \u201cThe Legal Process: Basic Problems in the Making and Application of Law\u201d (1958).<\/p>\n

    Herbert Wechsler, \u201cToward Neutral Principles of Constitutional Law\u201d (1959).<\/p>\n

    Ronald H. Coase, \u201cThe Problem of Social Cost\u201d (1960).\u00a0 \"checkedBoxN\"<\/p>\n

    Stewart Macaulay, \u201cNon-Contractual Relations in Business: A Preliminary Study\u201d (1963).<\/p>\n

    Guido Calabresi and Douglas Melamed, \u201cProperty Rules, Liability Rules, and Inalienability: One View of the Cathedral\u201d (1972).<\/p>\n

    Marc Galanter, \u201cWhy the \u2018Haves\u2019 Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change\u201d (1974).<\/p>\n

    Ronald Dworkin \u201957, \u201cHard Cases\u201d (1975).<\/p>\n

    Abram Chayes \u201949, \u201cThe Role of the Judge in Public Law Litigation\u201d (1976).<\/p>\n

    Duncan Kennedy, \u201cForm and Substance in Private Law Adjudication\u201d (1976).<\/p>\n

    Catharine A. MacKinnon, \u201cFeminism, Marxism, Method, and the State\u201d (1982-1983).<\/p>\n

    Robert Cover, \u201cViolence and the Word\u201d (1986).\u00a0 \"checkedBoxS\"\u00a0 <\/font><\/p>\n

    Frank Michelman \u201960, \u201cLaw\u2019s Republic\u201d (1988).<\/p>\n

    Kimberl\u00e9 Crenshaw \u201984, Neil Gotanda LL.M. \u201980, Gary Peller \u201980 and Kendall<\/p>\n

    Thomas, eds., \u201cIntroduction,\u201d \u201cCritical Race Theory: The Key Writings that Formed the Movement\u201d (1996).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    From\u00a0The Canon of American Legal Thought<\/em><\/a> (Princeton University Press, 2006).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    \u00a0\u00a0The new issue of Harvard Law Bulletin (Spring 2007) has an interesting discussion of The Canon of American Legal Thought\u00a0(Princeton University Press, Nov. 2006), which is edited and annotated\u00a0by Harvard Law professors David Kennedy and William W. Fisher III.\u00a0 The\u00a0936-page\u00a0compendium presents the 20 articles\u00a0the professors\u00a0“deem to have been most influential in shaping American legal thinking […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":94,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[3513,1414],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7465","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-lawyer-news-or-ethics","category-qs-quickies"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p6kP1R-1Wp","jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7465","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/94"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7465"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7465\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12566,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7465\/revisions\/12566"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7465"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7465"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7465"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}