June 1, 2012

"Some things that are big in the legal academy are considered irrelevant or crackpot by judges."

From an article titled "The Most-Cited Law Review Articles of All Time."

6 comments:

Chip S. said...

It ought to be mentioned that the article at the top of the list wasn't written by a lawyer, but an economist.

EDH said...

“Some things that are big in the legal academy are considered irrelevant or crackpot by judges,” Mr. Shapiro said. “There’s a feeling that law schools have become very theoretical and perhaps out of touch with whatever goes on in the courts.”

No shit.

Bender said...

Irrelevant or crackpot -- pretty much describes ANY law review article to a practicing attorney. You can go your entire highly successful litigation career and never once cite to a law review.

Saint Croix said...

“Some things that are big in the legal academy are considered irrelevant or crackpot by judges,” Mr. Shapiro said. “There’s a feeling that law schools have become very theoretical and perhaps out of touch with whatever goes on in the courts.”

On the other hand, if John Hart Ely was on the Court in 1973, maybe the Court wouldn't have screwed the pooch so bad in Roe v. Wade.

Ely was and is pro-choice but he eviscerated the legal bona fides of the opinion. I can't think of a law review article that so obliterates a judicial opinion.

Bender said...

SC -- you make the error of assuming that Blackmun, et al. gave a rat's ass about reason, law, etc. They did not. It was made abundantly clear by White that he was making it up out of whole cloth and that it was "an exercise of raw judicial power."

Richard Dolan said...

i was hoping the list would include The Common Law Origins of the Infield Fly Rule, U. Pa. L. R. (1975). It's my personal favorite. I try to cite it in appellate briefs whenever possible.