• About
    • Executive Board
    • Current Masthead
      • Past HLJ Mastheads
    • Prospective Members
  • Issues
    • Volume 76
      • Issue 1
    • Volume 75
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
      • Issue 5
      • Issue 6
    • Volume 74
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
      • Issue 5
      • Issue 6
    • Volume 73
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
      • Issue 5
      • Issue 6
    • Volume 72
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
      • Issue 5
      • Issue 6
    • Volume 71
    • Archives
  • Symposia
    • 2025 Symposium
    • 2024 Symposium
    • 2023 Symposium
  • UCLJ Online
  • SCOCAblog
  • Alumni
    • Events
    • Newsletter
    • UCLJ Alumni Board
    • Update Your Information
  • Submissions
  • Support UCLJ
  • 🔍

Legal Indeterminacy in Insanity Cases: Clarifying Wrongfulness and Applying a Triadic Approach to Forensic Evaluations

by technology@hastingslawjournal.org | May 7, 2016 | Volume 67, Issue 4

Kate E. Bloch and Jeffrey Gould Volume 67, Issue 4, 913-56 Insanity law in the United States embodies a convoluted collection of often ill-defined standards. The wrongfulness test, which is used in most U.S. jurisdictions, requires a...

Does Antidiscrimination Law Influence Religious Behavior? An Empirical Examination

by technology@hastingslawjournal.org | May 7, 2016 | Volume 67, Issue 4

Netta Barak-Corren Volume 67, Issue 4, 957-1022 What role should the behavioral reality of conflicts regarding gender, sexuality, and religious convictions play in the theory and doctrine of antidiscrimination law? Although the past several...

Sufficiently Safeguarded?: Competency Evaluations of Mentally Ill Respondents in Removal Proceedings

by technology@hastingslawjournal.org | May 7, 2016 | Volume 67, Issue 4

Sarah Sherman-Stokes Volume 67, Issue 4, 1023-66 In this Article, I examine the current regime for making mental competency determinations of mentally ill and incompetent noncitizen respondents in immigration court. In its present iteration,...

Understanding Validity in Empirical Legal Research: The Case for Methodological Pluralism in Assessing the Impact of Science in Court

by technology@hastingslawjournal.org | May 7, 2016 | Volume 67, Issue 4

Teneille R. Brown, James Tabery, and Lisa G. Aspinwall Volume 67, Issue 4, 1067-86 What makes a study valid or invalid? In 2013, the Hastings Law Journal published a law review article by law professor Deborah Denno entitled What Real-World...

Confronting Williams: The Confrontation Clause and Forensic Witnesses in the Post-Williams Era

by technology@hastingslawjournal.org | May 7, 2016 | Volume 67, Issue 4

Taryn Jones Volume 67, Issue 4, 1087-118 In Williams v. Illinois, the division of the U.S. Supreme Court created substantial confusion as to the proper application of the Confrontation Clause to forensic witnesses. In the decision, the Court...

Coordination or Consolidation? Accountable Care Organizations and Antitrust Policy Under the Medicare Shared Savings Program

by technology@hastingslawjournal.org | May 7, 2016 | Volume 67, Issue 4

Michael J. Montgomery Volume 67, Issue 4, 1119-52 The U.S. health care system is expensive, fragmented, poorly organized, and fails too often to deliver high quality care that is both accessible and cost efficient. In 2014, Americans spent an...

In re A-R-C-G-: A Game-Changer for Children Seeking Asylum on the Basis of Intrafamilial Violence

by technology@hastingslawjournal.org | May 7, 2016 | Volume 67, Issue 4

Sarah M. Winfield Volume 67, Issue 4, 1153-80 After over a decade of advocacy on behalf of women fleeing their home countries because of horrific domestic violence, practitioners and legal scholars obtained a precedential legal victory in...

Visit

UC Law Journal
UC, College of the Law, SF
198 McAllister Street
San Francisco, CA 94102

Contact

For general website inquiries, contact technology@hastingslawjournal.org.

For SCOCAblog inquiries, contact scocablog@hastingslawjournal.org.

For all other inquiries, contact hlj@hastingslawjournal.org.

Support

If you or your firm wish to support
UC Law Journal, please consider
donating here. Thank you for your contribution.

  • Instagram
  • X
      • Facebook