Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Keyword
-
- Tort (4)
- Torts (4)
- Copyright (3)
- Section 1983 (3)
- Article revision (2)
-
- Compensation (2)
- Copy-privilege (2)
- Intent (2)
- Procedural due process (2)
- Property (2)
- Sovereign immunity (2)
- Article organization (1)
- Author sovereignty (1)
- Author stewardship (1)
- Battery (1)
- Coase theorem (1)
- Consitutional (1)
- Contract (1)
- Daniels v. Williams (1)
- Davidson v. Cannon (1)
- Deliberateness (1)
- Deprivation (1)
- Desert theory (1)
- Economics (1)
- Gatekeeper (1)
- Harm (1)
- Immunity (1)
- Intellectual property law (1)
- Misappropriation explosion (1)
- Object (1)
Articles 1 - 13 of 13
Full-Text Articles in Law
Note On The Desert Theory Paper - 1986, Wendy J. Gordon
Note On The Desert Theory Paper - 1986, Wendy J. Gordon
Scholarship Chronologically
The desert theory paper may be recast under the title: “The Misappropriation Explosion: Desert Theory in Intellectual Property Law” or “Desert Theory Misapplied.”
Letter To Bruce Ackerman, Wendy J. Gordon
Letter To Bruce Ackerman, Wendy J. Gordon
Scholarship Chronologically
I shall be heading back to Rutgers for classes shortly, and I'm sending you a draft of the "Copyright and Copy-privilege" piece in the hope of receiving some additional comments before I enter into the final "polishing" stages later this month. As you know from my last note, the suggestions you made have proved extremely useful -- the title is the least of it. Among other things, your suggestions for reorganization led, indirectly, to a way of unifying the piece on copyright and contract with another piece I've been working on, regarding copyright and tort. I'm very pleased with the …
Letter To Professor Bruce Ackerman, Wendy J. Gordon
Letter To Professor Bruce Ackerman, Wendy J. Gordon
Scholarship Chronologically
As I said in my last note, your suggestions for the "Copyright and Copy-privilege" paper have proven extremely valuable. (The title is the least of it.) The reorganization you suggested has allowed the paper to blossom, and I'm extremely pleased with the results.
Letter To Professor Eric Neisser, Wendy J. Gordon
Letter To Professor Eric Neisser, Wendy J. Gordon
Scholarship Chronologically
It was good talking to you. As you know, I gained a great deal from the initial conversations with you and Jon on the Daniels/Davidson issue, and I appreciate your willingness to provide more feedback.
Letter To Prof. John Hyman Re: Daniels/Davidson Article, Wendy J. Gordon
Letter To Prof. John Hyman Re: Daniels/Davidson Article, Wendy J. Gordon
Scholarship Chronologically
It was good talking to you. As I said, I profited a great deal from our initial conversations on the Daniels/Davidson issue, and I appreciate your willingness to be provide more feedback.
Draft Of Justice Rehnquist's Commitment To The Court And Its Implications - 1986, Wendy J. Gordon
Draft Of Justice Rehnquist's Commitment To The Court And Its Implications - 1986, Wendy J. Gordon
Scholarship Chronologically
This Article will analyze the course to which Rehnquist seems to have committed the court, and examine its implications. Rehnquist starts with a notion of deliberateness (a federal concept that he draws out of the notion of deprivation) On its face, this seems to call for a new federal common law of torts.
Draft Of The Constitutionalization Of Intentional Torts - 1986, Wendy J. Gordon
Draft Of The Constitutionalization Of Intentional Torts - 1986, Wendy J. Gordon
Scholarship Chronologically
The Supreme Court has often faced the question of whether an individual who alleges that he has been injured by a state or local official or by a local governmental entity, can bring a constitutional tort action under section 1983 when state doctrines of sovereign or official immunity would make it impossible for the individual to prosecute an ordinary tort suit in the relevant state court. The Court has consistently held that when an official violates a substantive provision of the Constitution, only an immunity that is consistent with the purpose of section 1983 and the Consitution can be tolerated.
Draft Of The Intent In Private Tort Law - 1986, Wendy J. Gordon
Draft Of The Intent In Private Tort Law - 1986, Wendy J. Gordon
Scholarship Chronologically
These points can be best understood by bifurcating "intent" into its two components: state of mind (advertence) and the object to which the defendant's state of mind is directed.
Draft Of The Incoherence Of Intentional Torts And Section 1983 - 1986, Wendy J. Gordon
Draft Of The Incoherence Of Intentional Torts And Section 1983 - 1986, Wendy J. Gordon
Scholarship Chronologically
The Supreme Court has often faced the question of whether a person who alleges that a state or local official has caused him injury, can bring a constitutional tort action under section 1983 when the state doctrine of sovereign or official immunity makes it impossible for the injured person to prosecute an ordinary tort suit in the relevant state court.
Note On Materials For Arfuller - 1986, Wendy J. Gordon
Note On Materials For Arfuller - 1986, Wendy J. Gordon
Scholarship Chronologically
1/18/86 draft of "Towards a Unified Theory"
Note On General Conclusion - 1986, Wendy J. Gordon
Note On General Conclusion - 1986, Wendy J. Gordon
Scholarship Chronologically
The burden of the first part of this paper has been to suggest that tort law provides us no self-justifying notion of "wrongs" by which we can allocate rights and duties. The burden of the second part of this paper has been to suggest that contract law's notion of "consent" is similarly unable to provide justification for any particular system of rights. How would one go about constructing a theory by which to evaluate whether a given property system could be justified? A full answer to that question is surely outside the scope of this paper, but some basic points …
Note On Re Article On Definition Of Tort/Property - 1986, Wendy J. Gordon
Note On Re Article On Definition Of Tort/Property - 1986, Wendy J. Gordon
Scholarship Chronologically
Some distinctions in the law are fairly clear. For example, we seem to think that bad actions deserve to be punished, actions which are not personally blameworthy should not be punished, and that injuries to innocent persons should be compensated. But there are many instances in which these two goals cannot be simultaneously served. There we partially separate them, placing each in its own primary area of law. For those instances in which a bad action occurs and no one is injured, the criminal law has a remedy (the law of attempts). For those instances in which an innocent party …
Lecture Material For Advanced Torts - 1986, Wendy J. Gordon
Lecture Material For Advanced Torts - 1986, Wendy J. Gordon
Scholarship Chronologically
This assumes. of course, the defendant wants a speedy trial and is not intentionally hindering the Government's attempt to provide one. That assumption may be open to question in this case. The majority points out that respondents' strategically timed demands (or a speedy trial run somewhat hollow in light of respondents; overall behavior during the litigation.