link to Mitchell home

Volume 33: Issue 3

Family Law / Notes and Comments

Electronic copies of articles are available below. If you do not have Adobe Acrobat Reader, please click here. If you would like to purchase this issue or subscribe to the William Mitchell Law Review, click here.


Family Law

Roger J. Magnuson and Joshua M. Lederman
Aristotle, Abortion, and Fetal Rights

Lynne Marie Kohm
From Eisenstadt to Plan B: A Discussion of Consciencious Objections to Emergency Contraception

Stephen R. Arnott
Autonomy, Standing, and Children's Rights

Stephen K. Erickson
If They Can Do Parenting Plans, They Can Do Child Support Plans

Wright S. Walling
Adoption Law in Minnesota: A Historical Perspective

Resa M. Gilats
Out-of-Court Statements in Guardian ad Litem Written Repots

Rana Fuller
How to Effectively Advocate for Battered Women When Systems Fail

Gary L. Voegele, Linda K. Wray, and Ronald D. Ousky
Collaborative Law: A Useful Tool for the Family Law Practitioner to Promote Better Outcomes

Teresa Stanton Collett
Constitutional Confusion: The Case for the Minnesota Marriage Amendment

Anthony S. Winer
How a Marriage Discrimination Amendment Would Disrespect Democracy in Minnesota


Book Review Essay

Damien M. Schiff
Purposivism and the "Reasonable Legislator": A Review Essay of Justice Stephen Breyer's Active Liberty


Notes and Comments

Joshua A. Bobich
Note: Who Authorized This?!: An Assessment of the Process for Approving U.S. Covert Action

Shubha Harris
Case Note: Silencing the Noise of Democracy—The Supreme Court Denies First Amendment Protection for Public Employees' Job-Related Statements in Garcetti v. Ceballos

Chris Tymchuck
Note: A Procedural Quagmire: How to Proceed with an Action in Minnesota When a Client Dies En Pendente Lite

Ryan Fortin
Comment: Rapanos v. United States—A Historical Perspective on the Recent Decline in "Judicial Pioneering" in Wetlands Regulation


Copyright © 2007 William Mitchell Law Review
Member of the National Conference of Law Reviews

*Opinions expressed in the William Mitchell Law Review do not necessarily represent the views of the publication, its editors, William Mitchell College of Law, or any person connected therewith.