printer friendly pageLAW 217: Property
This course is part of the required first-year JD curriculum. It deals with possession and ownership of land and with the incidents thereof, including private and public restrictions on its use and development, nuisance, trespass, concurrent interests, landlord and tenant, and eminent domain. Attendance and final exam. Your instructor will advise you of other basis of grading. This course is open to first-year Law School students only.
Terms: Spr
| Units: 4
LAW 224B: Federal Litigation in a Global Context: Methods and Practice
This course continues with the winter simulation with students representing the plaintiff or defendant in a global torts case. Students submit and orally argue one persuasive brief on a motion in federal district court. Students build on their writing and oral advocacy skills with more emphasis on the lawyering practice. Students lead strategy sessions, conduct legal writing by email, meet and confer with opposing counsel, research, bluebook, peer edit, moot, judge, and orally argue a motion. This course depends on participation; attendance is mandatory. Spring grading reflects all non-written aspects of the work, including research, strategy, peer review, moots, and oral argument (including your roles as a judge and colleague), and professionalism. This course is open to first-year JD students only.
Terms: Spr
| Units: 2
Instructors:
Fagel, M. (PI)
;
Handler, N. (PI)
;
Hoffman, L. (PI)
...
more instructors for LAW 224B »
Instructors:
Fagel, M. (PI)
;
Handler, N. (PI)
;
Hoffman, L. (PI)
;
Linsenmayer, R. (PI)
;
Lupo, B. (PI)
;
Martin, K. (PI)
;
Patel, S. (PI)
;
Thesing, A. (PI)
;
Valeska, T. (PI)
;
Yorke, S. (PI)
LAW 400: Directed Research
Directed Research is an extraordinary opportunity for students beyond the first-year to research problems in any field of law. Directed research credit may not be awarded for work that duplicates the work of a course, clinic, or externship for which the student has registered. Directed research credit may be awarded for work that expands on work initially assigned in, or conceived during, a course, clinic, or externship, but only if the continued work represents a meaningful and substantial contribution to the already existing project, significantly beyond mere editing or polishing. If a student seeks to continue or expand on work that the student initiated previously (whether for a course, clinic, externship, or otherwise) a student must (1) share the initial work with the professor supervising the directed research, to the extent that work is non-privileged, and (2) obtain permission for the expansion from the instructor or supervisor who supervised the initial project. The final pro
more »
Directed Research is an extraordinary opportunity for students beyond the first-year to research problems in any field of law. Directed research credit may not be awarded for work that duplicates the work of a course, clinic, or externship for which the student has registered. Directed research credit may be awarded for work that expands on work initially assigned in, or conceived during, a course, clinic, or externship, but only if the continued work represents a meaningful and substantial contribution to the already existing project, significantly beyond mere editing or polishing. If a student seeks to continue or expand on work that the student initiated previously (whether for a course, clinic, externship, or otherwise) a student must (1) share the initial work with the professor supervising the directed research, to the extent that work is non-privileged, and (2) obtain permission for the expansion from the instructor or supervisor who supervised the initial project. The final product must be embodied in a paper or other form of written work involving a substantial independent effort on the part of the student. A student must submit a detailed petition of at least 250 words, approved by the sponsoring faculty member, outlining his or her proposed project and demonstrating that the research is likely to result in a significant scholarly contribution. A student may petition for "Directed Research: Curricular Development" when the work involves assisting a Law School faculty member in developing concepts or materials for new and innovative law school courses. Both the supervising faculty member and the Associate Dean for Curriculum must approve petition for "Directed Research: Curricular Development." Students must meet with the instructor frequently for the purposes of report and guidance. Unit credit is by arrangement. Students whose projects warrant more than four units should consider a Senior Thesis or the Research Track (See SLS Student Handbook for requirements and limitations). With the approval of the instructor, successful completion of a directed research project of two units or more may satisfy the JD writing requirement to the extent of one research writing course (R course). See Directed Research under Curricular Options in the SLS Student Handbook for requirements and limitations. Directed Research petitions are available on the Law School Registrar's Office website (see Forms and Petitions). Elements used in grading: Paper and as agreed to by instructor.
Terms: Aut, Win, Spr
| Units: 1-4
| Repeatable
8 times
(up to 8 units total)
Instructors:
Achiume, E. (PI)
;
Anand, E. (PI)
;
Anderson, M. (PI)
...
more instructors for LAW 400 »
Instructors:
Achiume, E. (PI)
;
Anand, E. (PI)
;
Anderson, M. (PI)
;
Bartlett, R. (PI)
;
Belt, R. (PI)
;
Campbell, J. (PI)
;
Chacon, J. (PI)
;
Donohue, J. (PI)
;
Douek, E. (PI)
;
Engstrom, D. (PI)
;
Fisher, G. (PI)
;
Ford, R. (PI)
;
Gienapp, J. (PI)
;
Grossman, J. (PI)
;
Ho, D. (PI)
;
Honigsberg, C. (PI)
;
Jensen, E. (PI)
;
Kessler, A. (PI)
;
Lemley, M. (PI)
;
Marshall, L. (PI)
;
Martinez, J. (PI)
;
McConnell, M. (PI)
;
Meyler, B. (PI)
;
Milhaupt, C. (PI)
;
O'Connell, A. (PI)
;
Ouellette, L. (PI)
;
Reddy, G. (PI)
;
Reese, E. (PI)
;
Sassoubre, T. (PI)
;
Seiger, A. (PI)
;
Sinnar, S. (PI)
;
Sivas, D. (PI)
;
Sklansky, D. (PI)
;
Sonne, J. (PI)
;
Spaulding, N. (PI)
;
Thompson, B. (PI)
;
Trillin, A. (PI)
;
Weisberg, R. (PI)
LAW 403: Senior Thesis
An opportunity for third-year students to engage in original research and to prepare a substantial written-work product on the scale of a law review article. The thesis topic should be chosen no later than two weeks after the beginning of the seventh term of law study and may be chosen during the sixth term. The topic is subject to the approval of the thesis supervisor, who may be any member of the Law School faculty under whose direction the student wishes to write the thesis and who is willing to assume the responsibility therefor. An oral defense of the thesis before members of the faculty, including the thesis supervisor, will be conducted late in the student's ninth academic term. Acceptance of the thesis for credit requires the approval of the thesis supervisor and one or more other members of the faculty who will be selected by the supervisor. Satisfactory completion of the senior thesis will satisfy graduation requirements to the extent of (a) 5 - 8 units of credit and (b) two research courses. The exact requirements for a senior thesis are in the discretion of the supervising faculty member. Special Instructions: Two Research credits are possible. Elements used in grading: Paper and as agreed to by instructor.
Terms: Aut, Win, Spr
| Units: 5-8
| Repeatable
3 times
(up to 9 units total)
Instructors:
Heller, T. (PI)
;
Spaulding, N. (PI)
LAW 406: Research Track
The Research Track is for students who wish to carry out a research project of a scope larger than that contemplated for a Senior Thesis. Research Track projects are to be supervised by two or more professors, at least one of whom must be a member of the Law School faculty. At least one faculty member in addition to the supervisors must read the written product of the research, and the student must defend the written work orally before the readers. Students will be admitted to Research Track only if they have a demonstrated capability for substantial independent research, and propose a significant and well-formulated project at the time of application. Special Instructions: Two Research credits are possible. Elements used in grading: Paper and as agreed to by instructor.
Terms: Aut, Win, Spr
| Units: 9-12
| Repeatable
for credit
Instructors:
Honigsberg, C. (PI)
LAW 411: Directed Professional Writing
Directed professional writing projects involve professional writing, such as motions, briefs, proposed legislation, and congressional testimony, undertaken with the assistance of --- and in collaboration with --- a faculty member. Directed professional writing credit is designed to allow a student, or a small group of students working together, to receive academic credit for their work tackling real-world problems. Only projects supervised by a member of the faculty (tenured, tenure-track, senior lecturer, or professor from practice) may qualify for Directed Professional Writing credit. It will not necessarily be appropriate to require each member of the team to write the number of pages that would be required for an individual directed research project earning the number of units that each team member will earn for the team project. The page length guidelines applicable to individual papers may be considered in determining the appropriate page length, but the faculty supervisor has di
more »
Directed professional writing projects involve professional writing, such as motions, briefs, proposed legislation, and congressional testimony, undertaken with the assistance of --- and in collaboration with --- a faculty member. Directed professional writing credit is designed to allow a student, or a small group of students working together, to receive academic credit for their work tackling real-world problems. Only projects supervised by a member of the faculty (tenured, tenure-track, senior lecturer, or professor from practice) may qualify for Directed Professional Writing credit. It will not necessarily be appropriate to require each member of the team to write the number of pages that would be required for an individual directed research project earning the number of units that each team member will earn for the team project. The page length guidelines applicable to individual papers may be considered in determining the appropriate page length, but the faculty supervisor has discretion to make the final page-length determination. Students must meet with the instructor frequently for the purposes of report and guidance. Unit credit is by arrangement. A petition will not be approved for work assigned or performed in a course, clinic, or externship for which the student has or will receive credit. Directed Professional Writing petitions are available on the Law School Registrar's Office website (see Forms and Petitions). Elements used in grading: As agreed to by instructor.
Terms: Aut, Win, Spr
| Units: 1-4
| Repeatable
8 times
(up to 8 units total)
Instructors:
Ablavsky, G. (PI)
;
Anderson, M. (PI)
;
Fisher, G. (PI)
...
more instructors for LAW 411 »
Instructors:
Ablavsky, G. (PI)
;
Anderson, M. (PI)
;
Fisher, G. (PI)
;
Jensen, E. (PI)
;
Romano, M. (PI)
;
Sklansky, D. (PI)
;
Zambrano, D. (PI)
LAW 802: TGR: Dissertation
Terms: Aut, Win, Spr
| Units: 0
| Repeatable
for credit
Instructors:
Ablavsky, G. (PI)
;
Banks, R. (PI)
;
Donohue, J. (PI)
...
more instructors for LAW 802 »
Instructors:
Ablavsky, G. (PI)
;
Banks, R. (PI)
;
Donohue, J. (PI)
;
Engstrom, D. (PI)
;
Fisher, G. (PI)
;
Greely, H. (PI)
;
Hensler, D. (PI)
;
Honigsberg, C. (PI)
;
Kessler, A. (PI)
;
Klausner, M. (PI)
;
Lemley, M. (PI)
;
MacCoun, R. (PI)
;
McConnell, M. (PI)
;
Milhaupt, C. (PI)
;
Nyarko, J. (PI)
;
Ouellette, L. (PI)
;
Rabin, R. (PI)
;
Sinnar, S. (PI)
;
Sykes, A. (PI)
;
Thompson, B. (PI)
;
Weiner, A. (PI)
;
Zambrano, D. (PI)
LAW 807G: Policy Practicum: The Santa Clara County Litigation & Policy Partnership (SCCLPP)
Policy Practicum: The Santa Clara County Litigation & Policy Partnership (SCCLPP) (807G): This policy lab partners with the Office of the County Counsel for the County of Santa Clara. Students in the lab will work with the leadership and deputies of the office on both litigation and policy matters related to urgent local challenges. SCCLPP projects may include issues from a range of fields: environmental protection, consumer protection, criminal justice, land use law, the rights of immigrant residents, public health, election law, and local finance. The SCCLPP is open only to Stanford Law Students (1L, 2L, and 3L JD and Advanced Degree students). Students will be admitted by consent, with a preference for those with past coursework or experience in state or local government law, public interest lawyering, and public service generally. The seminar portion of the course will meet six afternoons of the quarter (days TBD) from 4:15-6:15, one of which is for final presentations with SCCC at
more »
Policy Practicum: The Santa Clara County Litigation & Policy Partnership (SCCLPP) (807G): This policy lab partners with the Office of the County Counsel for the County of Santa Clara. Students in the lab will work with the leadership and deputies of the office on both litigation and policy matters related to urgent local challenges. SCCLPP projects may include issues from a range of fields: environmental protection, consumer protection, criminal justice, land use law, the rights of immigrant residents, public health, election law, and local finance. The SCCLPP is open only to Stanford Law Students (1L, 2L, and 3L JD and Advanced Degree students). Students will be admitted by consent, with a preference for those with past coursework or experience in state or local government law, public interest lawyering, and public service generally. The seminar portion of the course will meet six afternoons of the quarter (days TBD) from 4:15-6:15, one of which is for final presentations with SCCC attorneys and may, pandemic rules permitting, take place at the SCCC office. Elements used in grading: Attendance, Performance, Class Participation, Written Assignments. CONSENT APPLICATION: To apply for this course, students must complete and submit a Consent Application Form available on the SLS website (Click Courses at the bottom of the homepage and then click Consent of Instructor Forms). See Consent Application Form for instructions and submission deadline.
Terms: Spr
| Units: 3
| Repeatable
3 times
(up to 9 units total)
Instructors:
Anderson, M. (PI)
LAW 809D: Policy Practicum: "What's Next? After Students for Fair Admissions"
Policy Client: Stanford Center for Racial Justice,
https://law.stanford.edu/stanford-center-for-racial-justice/. The Supreme Court's decision in Students for Fair Admissions has upended nearly a half century of precedent. Universities that had long relied on race-based affirmative action in their admissions policies will no longer be permitted to do so. This policy lab will take up the question with which universities across the country must now grapple: What next? The orientation of the lab will be forward-looking and inclined toward innovation. New principles. New goals. New ideas. Rather than merely try to accomplish indirectly what the Supreme Court has prohibited universities from doing overtly, the practicum aims to treat the Supreme Court's prohibition of race-based affirmative action as an opportunity to reconsider more broadly the goals of selective college admissions and the ways in which America's leading educational institutions may reform admissions and associated practic
more »
Policy Client: Stanford Center for Racial Justice,
https://law.stanford.edu/stanford-center-for-racial-justice/. The Supreme Court's decision in Students for Fair Admissions has upended nearly a half century of precedent. Universities that had long relied on race-based affirmative action in their admissions policies will no longer be permitted to do so. This policy lab will take up the question with which universities across the country must now grapple: What next? The orientation of the lab will be forward-looking and inclined toward innovation. New principles. New goals. New ideas. Rather than merely try to accomplish indirectly what the Supreme Court has prohibited universities from doing overtly, the practicum aims to treat the Supreme Court's prohibition of race-based affirmative action as an opportunity to reconsider more broadly the goals of selective college admissions and the ways in which America's leading educational institutions may reform admissions and associated practices in order to improve higher education broadly. Advanced education is crucially important both to national well-being and to racial justice. There is no path to racial justice that does not entail an educational system that works better for people of all backgrounds. The recent Supreme Court decisions regarding race preferences in admissions, and also student loan forgiveness, create an uncommon opportunity to fairly radically rethink how universities make good on their implicit bargain with the American people: to receive public patronage in exchange for enhancing educational opportunity and social mobility. Two understandings of the issues inform the scope of work. One is that race-based affirmative action is far from the only aspect of university activity that has been or will be subject to criticism. Thus, we will not limit our focus to the one practice the Supreme Court has already prohibited. Rather, the entire array of marketing, recruitment, admissions and outreach practices and principles should be up for re-examination. The other important point to understand is that a school's admissions practices are connected to broader questions about the role of prestigious colleges and universities in American society. Only through engaging those broader questions can one think clearly about the normative aims that selective colleges and universities should seek to further, through admissions, financial aid and otherwise. In considering the issues, the lab will squarely confront a salient feature of American higher education that has received too little attention: the extraordinary stratification of American colleges and universities. The institutions at the apex of the hierarchy are the envy of the world; they are wealthier, more influential, and more sought after than ever before in our history. Yet, they educate a minuscule percentage of all students, most of whom struggle at less well-resourced institutions, which themselves struggle financially among other operational and educational challenges. The lab will consider the extent to which this extreme stratification is incompatible with the educational needs of our nation and will explore and develop strategies to counter it. The work product of the lab will be a guidance document for universities, policymakers, and stakeholders across the country that serves as a road map for how to promote learning and advance racial justice after Students for Fair Admissions. The report will synthesize and evaluate the most successful higher education reforms and offer robust analysis, innovative policy development and recommendations for how to forge better systems of learning for all students. Accomplishing this goal will require the participants in the lab to understand and assess a wide array of issues concerning the structure and goals of higher education, and to take arguments that emanate from conservatives as seriously as those that emanate from liberals. Students in this policy lab will research, identify, and design strategies and policy solutions to entrenched racial inequities within our higher education system, particularly at our most elite universities. Students will take a multidisciplinary approach to problem solving in the lab, researching and interacting with a wide range of experts and relevant fields, including but not limited to government, law, business, education, psychology, sociology, health, and technology. This class is open to Stanford Law School students, and available for cross-registration for undergraduate and graduate students from across campus. We highly encourage students from outside the Law School to apply, particularly students from the Graduate School of Education, the Graduate School of Business, and those interested in developing their design-thinking skills. Students will be working together in small teams. Grading will be based on presentations, class participation, group work, and written assignments, including a final paper. The long-term client for this policy lab is the Stanford Center for Racial Justice. Please note this lab is a fall quarter 3-unit commitment with the option for a winter quarter extension. The winter quarter extension is a variable 1-3 units. For winter term, this policy practicum is open only to students who are continuing in the project from the fall term. CONSENT APPLICATION: To apply for this course, students must complete a Consent Application Form available at SLS Registrar
https://registrar.law.stanford.edu/. Additionally, students must submit a resume, transcript, and brief policy exercise via email to Dionna Rangel at drangel@
law.stanford.edu. Applications are due by Sunday, September 17 at 11:59 pm. Directions for the policy exercise are below. POLICY EXERCISE: You are a senior advisor to the president of a small university that has relied on using race as a factor in their admissions process. The president has expressed major concerns about the implications for the school after the Supreme Court's decision to strike down affirmative action in Students for Fair Admissions. They have asked you to draft a policy memo to help them navigate the uncertainty brought on by this landmark decision, specifically: 1. Briefly summarize Students for Fair Admissions, including what the decision says is prohibited and what is permitted. 2. Identify potential avenues for the university to respond to the decision that might be worthy of further investigation, including innovative policy ideas and reforms but also anything the administration should be thinking about more broadly as a higher education institution. 3. Include a short bibliography of select readings that can help the president stay informed about the issues, ideas, and responses post-affirmative action. The memo should be no longer than two pages, single-spaced, and use 12-point font. SKILLS TRAINING: Students who enroll in a Law and Policy Lab practicum for the first time are asked to participate in the full-day methods boot camp typically held on the first Saturday of the term. If you wish to earn course credit for developing your policy analysis skills, you may formally enroll in "Elements of Policy Analysis" (
Law 7846) for one unit of additional credit. As you will see from the course description, credit for
Law 7846 requires your attendance at the full-day methods boot camp plus at least two additional lunch-hour workshops. If you enroll in a practicum but prefer to audit the supplemental skills class -- rather than receive formal credit -- please let Policy Lab Program Director Luciana Herman (lherman@
law.stanford.edu) know and she will contact you with more details. Only students who participated in the prior quarter's project will be admitted to the spring quarter practicum. Elements used in grading: Attendance, performance, class participation, written assignments, and final paper.
Terms: Aut, Win, Spr
| Units: 3
| Repeatable
2 times
(up to 6 units total)
LAW 809I: Policy Practicum: The Future of Eviction Prevention
Over the past 5 years, eviction prevention has become a hot topic for local policy in the US. Local coalitions of city governments, courts, and community groups have launched hundreds of pilots of laws, legal services, rent assistance, technology tools, mediation, navigators, and more in order to reduce the number of eviction lawsuits and mitigate their harmful consequences on families and communities. National groups like the American Bar Association, HUD, and the Treasury Department have issued guidance spotlighting promising interventions that could prevent evictions, reduce the number of forced moves, and improve housing stability. Five years into this work on eviction prevention, what do we know about what works? And how might policy-makers compare and assess these highly localized eviction prevention systems? This class will have students conduct interviews, workshops, and legal research to create a clearer vision of what the state of eviction prevention interventions are, and pr
more »
Over the past 5 years, eviction prevention has become a hot topic for local policy in the US. Local coalitions of city governments, courts, and community groups have launched hundreds of pilots of laws, legal services, rent assistance, technology tools, mediation, navigators, and more in order to reduce the number of eviction lawsuits and mitigate their harmful consequences on families and communities. National groups like the American Bar Association, HUD, and the Treasury Department have issued guidance spotlighting promising interventions that could prevent evictions, reduce the number of forced moves, and improve housing stability. Five years into this work on eviction prevention, what do we know about what works? And how might policy-makers compare and assess these highly localized eviction prevention systems? This class will have students conduct interviews, workshops, and legal research to create a clearer vision of what the state of eviction prevention interventions are, and propose what the future agenda for eviction prevention should be over the next decade. In the course, students will learn how evictions happen, what the general court process is, and how this differs across jurisdictions. They will also familiarize themselves with the landscape of eviction prevention solutions that has developed, especially during the Covid pandemic and the increased federal funding for rental assistance and eviction prevention. Students will learn about local experiments launched in cities and states across the US, including new legislation (like a right to counsel in eviction hearings and just cause requirements for filing an eviction lawsuit), new court rules (like requiring mediation before a case could be filed or proceed to a hearing), new technology (like text message reminders and online dispute resolution), and new services (like case managers and housing navigators). Then students will conduct research with community members, service providers, and policymakers across the country, to learn about their local eviction prevention systems. What pilots have been launched, what has worked, and what has not? What kinds of policies, services, and technology would be the most useful to a person going through an eviction? What does the data show about the impact of different interventions on the number of cases filed, the number of forced moves, the participation rates of tenants in the court process, or other key metrics? In addition to qualitative interviews, students will also do legal and policy research to document how different jurisdictions meet established eviction prevention standards. Which jurisdictions have implemented the legislation, court rules, and due process protections that national groups have recommended? Students will create a policy map that gives a national view of local eviction prevention laws and court rules. Students will create deliverables that can help both national and local policy-makers understand the state of local eviction prevention systems. Class work will include a report that summarizes the interview findings about what eviction prevention initiatives have worked or not, and that recommends an agenda for the next decade of eviction prevention work. It will also include a policy map, in the form of a report and website, that assesses how different regions perform according to recommended standards. As the class progresses, students will determine what other class deliverables might be useful. For example, students might create training materials for local judiciary, bar, and civic leaders on eviction prevention best practices and assessments. They may also propose an ongoing eviction prevention assessment protocol, that national and local leaders could use to regularly measure how robust their local eviction prevention efforts are, how they are performing, and where improvements may be needed. During the class, students will be required to complete a 2 hour online CITI program on ethical human subjects research. They will then follow an IRB-approved protocol to conduct interviews with community members and experts about eviction prevention efforts. The class will be a two quarter sequence. Students will gain expertise and leadership in housing policy, court innovation, and access to justice initiatives. They will have the opportunity to present their deliverables to national and local leaders, and to build lasting relationships in the field. Elements used in grading: Attendance, performance, class participation, written assignments. CONSENT APPLICATION: To apply for this course, students must submit a Consent Application Form at SLS Registrar
https://registrar.law.stanford.edu/. See the Consent Application Form for instructions and the submission deadline.
Terms: Win, Spr
| Units: 3
| Repeatable
2 times
(up to 6 units total)
Filter Results: