Endnotes is the online companion to the Maryland Law Review. It is intended to facilitate a more robust discussion of our print articles and quickly disseminate commentary on important judicial decisions, legal policy issues, and legislative developments. This online publication features response pieces to our print articles, non-traditional law review articles, and student pieces.
Endnotes pieces are published on a rolling basis and will undergo an expedited publication schedule. All pieces are edited by the Maryland Law Review staff. We prefer response pieces and non-traditional law review articles that are 5,000 words or less (inclusive of footnotes) and lightly footnoted, but longer pieces will be published in exceptional cases. All footnotes should conform to the 19th edition of The Bluebook.
Endnotes pieces should be cited as follows: Author, Title, [Volume] MD. L. REV. ENDNOTES [Page] (Year), [PDF URL].
We invite professors, researchers, judges, practitioners, and students to submit pieces for Endnotes publication. To submit a piece, please see Endnotes Submissions.
Submissions from 2013
Casting Shadows: Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin and the Misplaced Fear of "Too Much" Diversity, Susannah W. Pollvogt
Submissions from 2012
The New Legal Writing: the Importance of Teaching Law Students How to Use e-mail Professionally, Kendra Huard Fershee
Not Everyone Works for Biglaw: a Response to Neil J. Dilloff, Lawrence Friedman and Louis Schulze
Griffin v. State: Setting the Bar Too High for Authenticating Social Media Evidence, Brendan W. Hogan
Personal Jurisdiction and Joinder in Mass Copyright Troll Litigation, Jason R. LaFond
Connick v. Thompson: Unclear Motives Behind a Misguided Result, Claude Nicolas
Reimagining International Water Law, Tim Stephens
Submissions from 2011
Vogue Juridique & the Theory Choice Problem in the Debate over Copyright Protection for Fashion Designs, Michael G. Bennett, Nick Buell, Jason Cetel, and C. C. Perry
Schultz v. Bank of America: a Fly in the Financial Buttermilk - Clarifying the Common Knowledge Exception to Improve Litigation Efficiency and Bank Safety, Lauren M. Elfner
Citizens United v. FEC: Departure from Precedent Opens the Gate to "Phantom" Political Speakers, Esther Houseman
Submissions from 2010
Theories of Discrimination & Gay Marriage, Adam Farra
United States ex rel. DRC, Inc. v. Custer Battles, LLC: a Brutal Battle Foreshadowing the Future of False Claims Act Litigation, Kathleen H. Harne
Church v. State: Resolving One Problem but Raising Another - Addressing the Use of the Surveillance Location Privilege and the Limited Remand, David J. Martin
Richmond Medical Center for Women v. Herring: Prohibiting Partial Birth Abortion but Keeping Constitutional Rights Intact, Kathleen Morris
FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.: Dirty Words and Messy Logic - the Supreme Court's Failure to Fix Broadcast Media Regulation, Edward J. Reilly
Submissions from 2009
Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc.: How to Utilize Rule 502 to Prevent Inadvertent Disclosure and Reduce Discovery Costs in an Age of Electronically Stored Information, Michael J. Christin
The Handicapping Effect of Judicial Opinions in Reproductive Tort Cases: Correcting the Legal Perception of Persons with Disabilities, Kerry T. Cooperman
Storetrax.com, Inc. v. Gurland: Keep Trax of your Board of Directors, James R. Hart III
Khalifa v. Shannon: How Much Interference is Too Much when it comes to a Tort for Interfering with the Parent-Child Relationship?, Beth Rosenberg
Davis v. FEC: Closing the Road to Washington for Joe the Plumber, Sameer Vadera
Dickey v. State: Jury Instruction on Drug Use and its Concomitant Effect on Eyewitness Credibility, Rachel M. Witriol