|
For reviews and other discussions of the Foundations see:
Donald Nicolson, 26 Legal Studies 294-98 (2006) (book review)
Roger C. Park & Michael J. Saks, 47 Boston College Law Review 949, 1018-24 (2006) (discussion)
Amit Pundik, 25 Civil Justice Quarterly 504-28 (2006) (review article)
Mike Redmayne, 26 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 805-22 (2006) (review article)
Frederick Schauer, 155 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 165, 194 (2006) (discussion)
Deirdre M. Dwyer, 5 Law, Probability and Risk 75-85 (2006) (review article)
Roderick Bagshaw, 123 Law Quarterly Review 168-172 (2007) (book review)
David Hamer, 70 Modern Law Review 319-39 (2007) (review article)
Michael S. Pardo, 5 International Commentary on Evidence (2007)
Dale A. Nance, 13 Legal Theory 129-64 (2007) (review article)
Rafael Encinas de Munagorri, 2-2007 Revue Internationale de Droit Compare 457-60 (book review) (in French)
Denise Meyerson, 31 Sydney L. Rev. 507, 512-31 (2009)
Ronald J. Allen, 29 Law & Philosophy 195-230 (2010) (review article)
Alec Walen, 76 Louisiana Law Review 355, 377-410 (2015) (discussion)
I am working on a detailed response to my critics.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has adopted my key insight that all evidentiary rules (and procedural rules, too) allocate risk of error: Hill v. Humphrey, 662 F.3d 1335 (11th Cir. 2011).
|