<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?><!-- generator="WordPress/2.8.5" -->
<rss version="0.92">
<channel>
	<title>BoleyBlogs!</title>
	<link>http://lawlib.lclark.edu/boleyblogs</link>
	<description>The legal research blog of Lewis &#038; Clark Law School's Boley Law Library</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:18:04 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<docs>http://backend.userland.com/rss092</docs>
	<language>en</language>
	
	<item>
		<title>New L&amp;C Law Scholarship: Animal Law Volume 15, Issue 2</title>
		<description><![CDATA[The  latest issue of Lewis &#038; Clark Law School&#8217;s Animal Law is now out.
Here are the articles published in Volume 15, Issue 2 of Animal Law, complete with links to the abstracts:
Introduction

A Call To Action: Concrete Proposals For Reducing Widespread Animal Suffering In The United States by Dana M. Campbell

Essay

California Proposition 2: A Watershed [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://lawlib.lclark.edu/boleyblogs/?p=1567</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>New L&amp;C Law Scholarship: A Call To Action</title>
		<description><![CDATA[Dana M. Campbell, A Call To Action: Concrete Proposals For Reducing Widespread Animal Suffering In The United States, 15 Animal Law 141 (2009)
(abstract from Animal Law)
]]></description>
		<link>http://lawlib.lclark.edu/boleyblogs/?p=1583</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>New L&amp;C Law Scholarship: California Proposition 2</title>
		<description><![CDATA[Jonathan R. Lovvorn &#038; Nancy V. Perry, California Proposition 2: A Watershed Moment For Animal Law, 15 Animal Law 149 (2009)
This essay explores the legislative and legal campaign to enact California Proposition 2: The Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act, approved by California voters on November 5, 2008. The authors direct the legislative and litigation [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://lawlib.lclark.edu/boleyblogs/?p=1572</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>New L&amp;C Law Scholarship: Using Dogs For Emotional Support of Testifying Victims of Crime</title>
		<description><![CDATA[Marianne Dellinger, Using Dogs For Emotional Support of Testifying Victims of Crime, 15 Animal Law 171 (2009)
Courts and prosecutorial offices around the nation have started using service dogs to support emotionally frail child witnesses who are unwilling to testify but for the calming presence of a dog. Proponents claim that this new type of therapeutic [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://lawlib.lclark.edu/boleyblogs/?p=1568</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>New L&amp;C Law Scholarship: The Alaskan Wolf War</title>
		<description><![CDATA[Edward A. Fitzgerald, The Alaskan Wolf War: The Public Trust Doctrine Missing In Action, 15 Animal Law 193 (2009)
Wolf killing in Alaska is authorized by the Board of Game (BOG), which is an agency captured by hunting and trapping interests. The BOG&#8217;s wolf killing policies have generally been supported by state legislatures and governors. Alaskan [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://lawlib.lclark.edu/boleyblogs/?p=1560</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>New L&amp;C Law Scholarship: Caring for Dolphins, Otters, and Octopuses</title>
		<description><![CDATA[Marla K. Conley, Caring for Dolphins, Otters, and Octopuses: Speciesism in the Regulations of Zoos and Aquariums, 15 Animal Law 237 (2009)
Current regulations for zoos and aquariums rely heavily on standards established by industry associations, and the government increasingly expects public display facilities to self-monitor. Unfortunately, the industry associations charged with policing zoos and aquariums [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://lawlib.lclark.edu/boleyblogs/?p=1557</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>New L&amp;C Law Scholarship: Lewis &amp; Clark Law Review Volume 13, Number 3</title>
		<description><![CDATA[The  latest issue of Lewis &#038; Clark Law School&#8217;s Lewis &#038; Clark Law Review is now out.
Here are the articles published in Volume 13, Number 3 of Lewis &#038; Clark Law Review, complete with links to the abstracts and full-text articles:
Symposium Articles

We Have A &#8220;Purpose&#8221; Requirement If We Can Keep It by James F. [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://lawlib.lclark.edu/boleyblogs/?p=1553</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>New L&amp;C Law Scholarship: We Have A &#8220;Purpose&#8221; Requirement If We Can Keep It</title>
		<description><![CDATA[James F. Flanagan, We Have A &#8220;Purpose&#8221; Requirement If We Can Keep It, 13 Lewis &#038; Clark Law Review 553 (2009)
The Supreme Court in Giles v. California held that a defendant forfeits the right to confront a witness only when he purposefully keeps the witness away. Many see the &#8220;purpose&#8221; requirement as an unjustified bar [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://lawlib.lclark.edu/boleyblogs/?p=1549</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>New L&amp;C Law Scholarship: Forfeiture and Cross-Examination</title>
		<description><![CDATA[Robert Kry, Forfeiture and Cross-Examination, 13 Lewis &#038; Clark Law Review 577 (2009)
The forfeiture exception to the confrontation right allows the admission of a witness&#8217;s prior testimony where the defendant wrongfully procures the witness&#8217;s absence from trial. But did the common-law forfeiture exception justify admitting any statements previously made by the witness? Or did it [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://lawlib.lclark.edu/boleyblogs/?p=1547</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>New L&amp;C Law Scholarship: Selective Originalism</title>
		<description><![CDATA[Thomas Y. Davies,  Selective Originalism: Sorting Out Which Aspects of Giles&#8217;s Forfeiture Exception To Confrontation Were or Were Not &#8220;Established at the Time of the Founding&#8221; , 13 Lewis &#038; Clark Law Review 605 (2009)
In Giles v. California (2008), as previously in Crawford v. Washington (2004), Justice Scalia&#8217;s majority opinion purported to follow the [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://lawlib.lclark.edu/boleyblogs/?p=1543</link>
			</item>
</channel>
</rss>
