Buffalo Law Review

The Docket: Submissions

The Buffalo Law Review invites responses to any article or response published in the last two years. It is the Editorial Board's position that the timely dissemination of Docket pieces is crucial to promoting scholarly discourse. Accordingly, the Buffalo Law Review requests that all responses be lightly footnoted, no longer than 4,000 words, and limited in scope to matters addressed in articles published in the Review or other journals, in responses submitted to The Docket, or shorter original works. Responses must conform to the Nineteenth Edition of The Bluebook and The Chicago Manual of Style.

Please submit responses to the blrarticles2@gmail.com, with the subject line "Response to [article title here]" or "Response to [forum piece title here]." Authors should also submit a curriculum vitae in addition to the article. Review of responses submitted will be conducted by the Executive Editor and an Articles Editor. We will notify authors of selection for publication in the Forum within a week of submission. We cannot, unfortunately, respond to each submission. The Forum may feature multiple responses to a single article, and we welcome authors to submit responses on a rolling basis so as to create a robust dialogue.

Responses appearing in The Docket are featured on the Review's website as Adobe PDF files. They are also available on the Lexis and Westlaw databases.

Citation Format for Responses in The Docket:

John Doe, Response Title, 58 Buff. L. Rev. Docket 1, 1 (2010), www.buffalolawreview.org/docket/content/58/author.pdf.

Noteworthy

Paul Larkin's article on the implications of changing marijuana laws was featured in his testimony to the Canadian Parliament on the same subject matter. Paul had a particular focus on how, as governments are legalizing marijuana in different ways, and at different rates, there are coordination issues when citizens have freedom to travel between the jurisdictions of those governments. His full statement can be found here.

Brendan Conley's comment was selected from our 2016–17 Note & Comment competition. It focuses on the transient legal setting in which fantasy sports betting has been developing. Concurrent with its publishing, the Supreme Court made its decision in the case he follows. As expected, the Court ultimately did rule in favor of New Jersey on May 14, 2018, striking down the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act in Murphy v. NCAA, 584 U.S. ___, Nos. 16-476, 16-477, 2017 WL 684747 (2018). More on Murphy can be found here.

[View more Noteworthy]

Copyright © 2018 Buffalo Law Review. All Rights Reserved.