The Sweet Smell of Subsidies Revisited

Agricultural and Food Policy,

An Investment Analysis Approach to Examining Bio-Control of Invasive Weeds

Invasive weeds are a large problem on large tracts of rangeland in North America. Biological methods of control have been instituted, but many information gaps remain. An investment model approach is used to demonstrate some of the potentially key pieces of biological data that are required for an analysis. This model is applied to the control of leafy spurge on rangeland. The results of control are very dependent on the rate of spread and control by the biological control agent, the initial density of the weed, and the recovery of the forage (grass) after the weed has been controlled. Benefits of control are relatively low, as is the cost of the biological control practice. It takes several years before net benefits of the control practice are positive.Land Economics/Use,

The Constitutionality of Civil Commitment and the Requirement of Adequate Treatment

This Article examines the constitutional concerns raised by, and compares the costs and benefits associated with, the civil commitment of sexually violent predators. Specifically, it focuses on the State of Washington\u27s civil commitment program, the oldest such program in the United States and the only program in the nation to have its constitutional parameters fully litigated. In large measure, the litigation surrounding Washington\u27s civil commitment program has defined the scope of the constitutional rights of civilly committed individuals to constitutionally adequate treatment. At the same time, it has demonstrated many of the problems associated with such programs and provides an important case study in assessing their costs and benefits. This Article concludes that, in addition to the potential constitutional concerns regarding civil commitment, the costs of civil conunitment appear to outweigh its benefits. As a result, increasing criminal penalties for crimes of sexual violence may be a superior alternative

The Twombly Revolution?

In Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, the Supreme Court issued a decision that has been described as nothing less than startling . In a 7-2 decision, the Court provided an interpretation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that has significantly increased the level of scrutiny that federal courts must apply in determining the sufficiency of the pleadings. While some have characterized the Court\u27s decision as vague or poorly-reasoned, this article defends the Twombly decision as both a correct and welcome development in the law regarding the appropriate pleading standard under Rule 8(a). The article argues that the Court\u27s decision is best interpreted as imposing a requirement of logical coherence on the pleadings: the allegations in the complaint if taken as true must be both necessary and sufficient to establish a cause of action. The article maintains that this interpretation of Twombly avoids many of the criticisms of the decisions made by courts and commentators to date