Citation: D. Friedman, THE HISTORY, DEVELOPMENT, AND INTERPRETATION OF THE MARYLAND DECLARATION OF RIGHTS, Temple law review, 70(3), 1997, pp. 945-1016
Citation: Jt. Lukens, THE PRISON LITIGATION REFORM ACT - 3 STRIKES AND YOURE OUT-OF-COURT -IT MAY BE EFFECTIVE, BUT IS IT CONSTITUTIONAL, Temple law review, 70(2), 1997, pp. 471-520
Citation: Dl. Marcus, IS THE SUBMARINE PATENT TORPEDOED - FORD-MOTOR-CO. V. LEMELSON AND THE REVIVAL OF CONTINUATION APPLICATION LACHES, Temple law review, 70(2), 1997, pp. 521-586
Citation: S. Berenknopf, JUDICIAL AND CONGRESSIONAL BACK-DOOR METHODS THAT LIMIT THE EFFECT OFROE V. WADE - THERE IS NO CHOICE IF THERE IS NO ACCESS, Temple law review, 70(2), 1997, pp. 653-698
Citation: Rs. Nix, BENNETT V. SPEAR - JUSTICE SCALIA OVERSEES THE LATEST BATTLE IN THE WAR BETWEEN PROPERTY-RIGHTS AND ENVIRONMENTALISM, Temple law review, 70(2), 1997, pp. 745-781
Citation: D. Penn, FINDING THE STANDARD-OF-LIABILITY UNDER TITLE-IX FOR STUDENT-AGAINST-STUDENT SEXUAL-HARASSMENT - CONFRONTATION, CONFUSION, AND STILL NO CONCLUSION, Temple law review, 70(2), 1997, pp. 783-823
Citation: Rj. Lukens, INGERSOLL,JARED REJECTION OF APPOINTMENT AS ONE OF THE MIDNIGHT JUDGES OF 1801 - FOOLHARDY OR FARSIGHTED, Temple law review, 70(1), 1997, pp. 189-231
Citation: Kw. Holt, REEVALUATING HOLLOWAY - TITLE-VII, EQUAL-PROTECTION, AND THE EVOLUTION OF A TRANSGENDER JURISPRUDENCE, Temple law review, 70(1), 1997, pp. 283-319
Citation: Ba. Woods, ANTITRUST-LAW - SUPREME-COURT DROPS THE BALL - BROWN V PRO-FOOTBALL-INC, 116 S CT 2116 (1996), HIGHLIGHTS THE NEED TO RETURN LABORS ANTITRUST EXEMPTION TO ITS STATUTORY ORIGIN, Temple law review, 70(1), 1997, pp. 321-347