The Business Law Prof Blog — which is co-edited by Professor J. Scott Colesanti — has been nominated by Lexis Nexis for inclusion on its list of Top 25 Business Law Blogs of 2010. Each year, LexisNexis honors a select group of blogs that set the online standard for a given industry

Readers may comment or vote on the nomination until October 8, 2010. To do so, visit one of the following links:
Top 25 Business Law Blogs 2010 – Corporate & Securities Law Community

Top 25 Business Law Blogs 2010 – UCC, Commercial Contracts & Business Law Community

Professor Stefan H. Krieger recently published his article, The Place of Storytelling in Legal Reasoning: Abraham Joshua Heschel's Torah min Hashamayim in 6 Storytelling, Self, Society: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Storytelling Studies 169 (2010).

ABSTRACT:
This article reads the teachings of two rabbis from the Second Century through the lenses of cognitive science on legal reasoning and shows the relationship of their narratives and legal opinions. Cognitive scientists posit that both logical and narrative thinking are essential and interrelated modes of cognitive functioning. The stories and legal decisions of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Ishmael, as described by Abraham Joshua Heschel in his masterpiece, Torah min Hashamayim (Heavenly Torah) support these insights. Consistent with the findings of cognitive science, the narrative themes and images of each rabbi permeate their legal rulings. Heavenly Torah also reflects Heschel’s own narrative, his attempts to make meaning after the Holocaust and in the midst of 1960s America. As with Akiva and Ishmael, Heschel’s narrative infuses his own approach to legal decision making. This article demonstrates that in analyzing issues, all legal practitioners consider both the logical principles of their legal system and the narrative themes and images they have created to find meaning in the world in which they live.

Professor Julian Ku has been awarded a grant to serve as a Fulbright Distinguished Lecturer in Law at the East China University of Political Science and Law in Shanghai during the spring 2011 semester.

While in China, Professor Ku will teach courses in U.S. constitutional law and international economic law. He also will pursue research on China and international law, among other topics.

For more information, click here.

Bill Would Bar Judges From Hearing Donors' Cases
By Evan Weinberger
Law 360
August 26, 2010

EXCERPT:

James Sample, a Hofstra Law School professor, said that the law was a preemptive strike aimed at keeping control of campaign spending in judicial campaigns that critics refer to as an “arms race.” More than $9.3 million was spent for an Illinois Supreme Court race in 2004, much of it by outside third-party groups, the costliest judicial election so far.

But the law will have a limited effect because the seven California Supreme Court justices — one chief justice and six associate justices — are appointed by the state's governor to 12-year terms and then are subject to retention elections.

“I think it's a step in the right direction,” Sample said. “California doesn't yet have a money and courts problem the way many other states around the country do, and part of that is because the state Supreme Court is not elected.”

Read the full article at law360.com.

Sample: Contributions, Expenditures, and Caperton Contributions
By James Sample
Election Law Blog
August 20, 2010

EXCERPT:

Rick Hasen is a friend and mentor for whom I have the utmost respect and admiration. And--in yet another testament to Rick exemplifying the highest, but oft-ignored ideals of the blogging genre--he invited this guest post precisely because he knows that I disagree with him, though only with respect to one small part of his analysis.

In June, 2009, Rick did something rather remarkable on this blog: he suggested that a Supreme Court Justice had made an inadvertent error in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. Inc., radically changing its meaning. In blogging on the date of the decision in Caperton, involving constitutional standards dictating when a judge must recuse himself based on campaign contributions, Rick noted that "given the key distinction in campaign finance law between contributions and expenditures," he "thought it was very curious that Justice Kennedy frames the issue at the beginning of the case as follows: 'The basis for the motion was that the justice had received campaign contributions in an extraordinary amount from, and through the efforts of, the board chairman and principal officer of the corporation found liable for the damages.'"

Read the full article at electionlawblog.org.