The Lewis & Clark Law Review (LCLR) is a general-purpose law review publishing original scholarship from across the legal academy.
First founded as the Journal of Small and Emerging Business Law in 1996, and rededicated with a broader mission in Spring 2004, LCLR has quickly established itself as a top-50 journal. In the latest Washington & Lee citation rankings, LCLR ranked No. 41 among general-interest law reviews and No. 44 among all law reviews.
Our current issue, Volume 23 / Number 3 / 2019, is now available online, featuring articles by Michael Vitiello, Susan F. Mandiberg, Dustin Marlan, Francis J. Mootz III and Jason Horst, and Alexis Holmes, as well as Notes and Comments by Blake Marvis, Zachary Nelson, and Hayley Hollis.
Online Article Releases:
(Nov. 6, 2019) The Lewis & Clark Law Review Online is pleased to announce our final publication for Fall 2019, Volume 24.1.
by Brooks Kern
This Article explores the misapplication of Voisine v. United States to the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”). Under the ACCA, possessing a firearm with three “violent” felonies results in a mandatory sentence enhancement. Courts have faltered, however, by mandating sentence enhancement when the predicate crimes were committed with the mental state of recklessness. Voisine itself had no bearing on the ACCA, but courts have nonetheless extended its reasoning to violent felonies and the ACCA.
As such, this Article argues that reckless offenses should never qualify as predicate offenses under the ACCA because they are not rightly labeled as violent felonies which must be “purposeful, violent, and aggressive.” Public policy and the rule of lenity support the conclusion that sentence enhancements under the ACCA should not be applied when the defendant’s prior convictions were based on reckless conduct. Finally, the ACCA’s sentence enhancement was intended to punish “the very worst offenders with the worst records”— predicate crimes committed with a reckless mens rea are not what Congress had in mind.
(Oct. 30, 2019) The Lewis & Clark Law Review Online is pleased to announce our most recent publication.
by Bruce Lepore
This Article is the second part in a four-part series that examines the scope of rulemaking authority in Oregon’s common interest developments (CIDs). Part I examined the provisions of the Oregon Planned Community Act and the Oregon Condominium Act that govern rulemaking authority. This Article, Part II, examines the methods for determining if a particular rule is within the scope of discretionary authority that a CID’s governing documents confer. This Article attempts to provide an analytical process for determining the validity of such rules by considering the effect of governing document provisions that expressly authorize an association to adopt rules by resolution. Part III will return to a discussion of Oregon’s statutory scheme to explore how its provisions limit that discretionary authority. The fourth and final part of this series will draw upon Parts I, II, and III to make specific, simple, and pragmatic recommendations for best practices that board members in Oregon can employ during the rulemaking process to ensure that their rules are valid.
Our 2018 Symposium featured cutting-edge scholarship on contemporary immigration issues, particularly in the wake of President Trump’s attempts to implement various immigration policies. More information can be found Here. The issue featuring articles discussed at the Symposium is scheduled to be published in mid-2018.
Information on the 2019 Law Review Symposium will be available later this year.
Information about the 2019 Summer Citation Competition is available for your review.
A Word About Copyright
Unless a particular piece in the Lewis & Clark Law Review indicates otherwise, the author of each piece in the review has granted all interested readers the right to reproduce and distribute multiple copies of the piece for classroom use in classes at institutions of higher education. This grant is applicable so long as (1) copies are distributed only to students enrolled in the class, (2) no fee, other than a per page copying charge, is paid by the students, (3) the author and the Lewis & Clark Law Review are identified on each copy, and (4) copyright notice is affixed to each copy.
Please note …
The views expressed by authors in the Lewis & Clark Law Review do not necessarily reflect those of the review’s Editorial Board.