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:
(July 1, 2019) The Lewis & Clark Law Review Online is pleased to announce our most recent publications.
THE DEAD HAND OF THE PAST IN OREGON CHOICE OF LAW by John T. Parry.
Abstract: This Essay considers the reception of Oregon’s choice-of-law statutes in Oregon state and federal court.
First, this Essay discusses the reception of the choice-of-law-statutes for torts and contracts. For many years, federal courts ignored these statutes and continued to apply superseded common law choice-of-law doctrine. Published state court opinions typically misapply the statutes, perhaps on the assumption that they simply codified the common law, when in fact the statutes are a deliberate departure from the common law. To make matters worse, several state and federal court decisions explicitly use common law doctrines as default rules when applying the statutes, even though the statutes reject the common law approach entirely.
Next, this Essay examines Oregon’s difficult relationship with the Uniform Conflict of Laws-Limitations Act (UCLLA). Most state and federal court decisions that apply Oregon’s version of the UCLLA do so badly, with little or no understanding of how the statute is supposed to work.
The central argument of this Essay is that Oregon’s state and federal courts should pay better attention to the statutes that they are applying. Courts should be applying these statutes in a manner that is faithful to their text and purpose. Proper application of the statutes will require judges to depart from older and ingrained habits of choice-of-law thinking and to give up the freewheeling discretion associated with those habits.
by Kellen Brockman
Abstract: At the turn of the 21st century, the online file sharing service Napster shook the foundation of the recorded music industry by providing music for free over the Internet. In order to survive, Record Labels had to find new sources of revenue to replace the loss of revenue from physical music sales. One of those new sources affected how Labels earned revenue by expanding Labels’ contractual relationships with their artists. Standard Label agreements now give Labels an active or passive interest in nearly every aspect of an artist’s career instead of only in their sound recordings.
This new relationship transforms the role of a Label in an artist’s career into something similar to the traditional relationship between a personal manager and artist. This Article examines whether this relationship could be one of agency, which includes a fiduciary relationship. If a court were to find that such a relationship exists, this Article argues that it should give deference to the terms to which the parties agreed, including the shaping or disclaiming of any fiduciary duties. Additionally, a court should follow the cases that have evaluated a potential breach of a fiduciary duty through the lens of the unique nature of the music industry and its customs, which serve to benefit the artist, Label, and music listeners.
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.