Semiotics, Analogical Legal Reasoning, and the Cf. Citation: Getting Our Signals Uncrossed

The Bluebook\u27s introductory citation signals are essential to effective legal discourse. The choice of signal can influence not only the interpretation of cited cases, but also the path of the law. In this Article, Professor Ira Robbins examines one commonly used signal: the cf. After exploring its semiotic function, he details the multitude of ways in which this signal has been used and misused. He argues that lawyers\u27 and judges\u27 careless use of the cf. leads to confusing and often incoherent developments in the law, and concludes by proposing a precise working definition for this irksome, but potentially powerful, citation signal

Isochronal synchronization of delay-coupled systems

We consider small network models for mutually delay-coupled systems which typically do not exhibit stable isochronally synchronized solutions. We show that for certain coupling architectures which involve delayed self feedback to the nodes, the oscillators become isochronally synchronized. Applications are shown for both incoherent pump coupled lasers and spatio-temporal coupled fiber ring lasers.Comment: 5 pages, accepted for publication in Physical Review

Bargaining Between Goals

This report describes research done at the Artificial Intelligence Laboratory of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Support for the laboratory's artificial intelligence research is provided in part by the Advanced Research Projects Agency of the Department of Defense under Office of Naval Research contract N00014-70-A-0362-0003.Bargaining is a process used to modify conflicting demands on an expendable resource so that a satisfactory allocation can be made. In this paper, I consider the design of a bargaining system to handle the problem of scheduling an individual's weekly activities and appointments. The bargaining system is based on the powerful reasoning strategy of producing a simplified linear plan by considering the various constraints independently and then debugging the resulting conflicts.MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory Department of Defense Advanced Research Projects Agenc

The Obsolescence of Blue Laws in the 21st Century

Depending on where in the United States one is located on any given Sunday or Christian holiday, it is against the law to buy a beer or a car, go shopping, hunt, or even play Bingo. This prohibition is a direct result of Blue Laws, alternatively called Sunday Closing Laws or Lord’s Day Acts. Blue Laws frustrate commerce and recreational activities. While at one time they might have aligned with societal values or served a practical secular purpose, such as providing workers with a day of rest, modern society renders Blue Laws obsolete and nonsensical. Due to rapid change in societal opinion regarding religion and liquor, many states have already repealed and chipped away at liquor Blue Laws over the last decade. Modern developments in technology have also changed the way consumers shop. Consequently, Sunday Closing Laws do not effectively curb Sunday commerce, but instead assure that brick-and-mortar shops and automobile lots unfairly bear the burden of these restrictions. While Blue Laws have previously survived First and Fourteenth Amendment challenges, they have become increasingly constitutionally suspect, as they are riddled with exceptions urged by special interest groups. Moreover, federal regulatory schemes more effectively accomplish the secular goals of Blue Laws. The doctrine of desuetude further complicates the issue, given the conspicuous lack of enforcement. Due to the legally suspect basis, the development of societal mores and technology in the twenty-first century, the benefits to legislators and the judiciary in time saved, the benefits to consumers and retailers in convenience and additional profit, and the benefit to the state in increased economic activity and tax revenue, states should repeal Blue Laws across the board

Best Practices on Best Practices : Legal Education and Beyond

“Best practices” has become one of the most common research and development techniques in the United States and throughout the international community. Originally employed in industry, the con-cept sought to identify superior means to achieve a goal through “benchmarking,” thereby allowing companies to obtain a competitive advantage in the marketplace. In recent decades, the use of best prac-tices has become widely popularized, and is frequently utilized in the areas of administrative regulation, corporate governance, and academia. As the term has grown in popularity, however, so too has room for its abuse. In many instances, the term has been invoked to claim unsupported superiority in a given field. This article examines the history behind the emergence of best practices, summarizes the prevailing models of the concept, surveys the worst practices on best practices, and proposes a working defini-tion. It then applies that definition to the Clinical Legal Education Association publication, Best Practices for Legal Education. While there are contexts in which identifying and applying best practices may be appropriate, the article concludes that using best practices when thinking and writing about legal education is misleading and inappropriate

Magistrate Judges, Article III, and the Power to Preside Over Federal Prisoner Section 2255 Proceedings.

In 1968, Congress enacted the Federal Magistrates Act to enhance judicial efficiency in the federal courts. Since then, some judicial functions delegated to magistrate judges have been challenged on constitutional grounds: while federal district judges, appointed pursuant to Article III of the United States Constitution, are protected with life tenure and undiminishable salary, thereby enhancing judicial independence, federal magistrate judges, appointed pursuant to Article I, have no such protection. The most recent major challenge to magistrate judge authority came in 2001, when the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in United States v. Johnston, decided that referral to magistrate judges for final disposition of federal prisoner 28 U.S.C. § 2255 post-conviction motions, with the consent of the parties, violates Article III. This Article traces the evolution of the Federal Magistrates Act, explores constitutional and other challenges that have arisen under the Act and how the courts have resolved them, and reviews the unique nature of § 2255 motions. Professor Robbins argues against referral of § 2255 motions to magistrate judges for final disposition, and concludes with recommendations of other ways to deal with these motions without overloading the judicial system