Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T22:17:48.878Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Bibliography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 June 2019

Wendy Wagner  and
Will Walker
Wendy Wagner
Affiliation:
University of Texas School of Law
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Incomprehensible!
A Study of How our Legal System Encourages Incomprehensibility, Why It Matters, and What We Can Do About It
 , pp. 325 - 336
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Akerlof, George and Shiller, Robert. Phishing for Phools: The Economics of Manipulation and Deception (Princeton, 2015).Google Scholar
Allison, John R. and Lemley, Mark A.. “The Growing Complexity of the United States Patent System,” 82 Boston University Law Review 77 (2002).Google Scholar
Andrejevic, Mark. Infoglut: How Too Much Information Is Changing the Way We Think and Know (Routledge, 2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Applegate, John S. “The Government Role in Scientific Research: Who Should Bridge the Data Gap in Chemical Regulation?” in Rescuing Science from Politics 255 (Wagner, Wendy & Steinzor, Rena, eds.) (Cambridge, 2006).Google Scholar
Applegate, John S. “The Perils of Unreasonable Risk: Information Regulatory Policy and Toxic Substances Control,” 91 Columbia Law Review 261 (1991).Google Scholar
Atiyah, P. S. and Summers, Robert S.. Form and Substance in Anglo-American Law (Clarendon, 1987).Google Scholar
Ayres, Ian and Gertner, Robert. “Filling Gaps in Incomplete Contracts: An Economic Theory of Default Rules,” 99 Yale Law Journal 87 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayres, Ian and Schwarz, Alan. “The No-Reading Problem in Consumer Contract Law,” 66 Stanford Law Review 545 (2014).Google Scholar
Bakos, Yannis, Marotta-Wurgler, Florencia, and Trossen, David R.. “Does Anyone Read the Fine Print? Consumer Attention to Standard-Form Contracts,” 43 The Journal of Legal Studies 1 (2014).Google Scholar
Bar-Gill, Oren. Seduction by Contract (Oxford, 2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bar-Gill, Oren and Bubb, Ryan. “Credit Card Pricing: The Card Act and Beyond,” 97 Cornell Law Review 967 (2012).Google Scholar
Bar-Gill, Oren and Warren, Elizabeth. “Making Credit Safer,” 157 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1 (2008).Google Scholar
Barnes, Wayne R. “Towards a Fairer Model of Consumer Assent to Standard Form Contracts: In Defense of Restatement Subsection 221(3),” 82 Washington Law Review 227 (2007).Google Scholar
Baxter, Lawrence G. “Betting Big: Value, Caution and Accountability in an Era of Ultra-Large Banking,” 31 Review of Banking & Financial Law 765 (2012).Google Scholar
Becher, Shmuel I. “Asymmetric Information in Consumer Contracts: The Challenge that Is Yet to Be Met,” 45 American Business Law Journal 723 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beh, Hazel Glenn. “Curing the Infirmities of the Unconscionability Doctrine,” 66 Hastings Law Journal 1011 (2015).Google Scholar
Bekelman, Justin E., Li, Yan, and Gross, Cary P.. “Scope and Impact of Financial Conflicts of Interest in Biomedical Research,” 289 JAMA 454 (2003).Google Scholar
Ben-Shahar, Omri. “The Myth of the ‘Opportunity to Read’ in Contract Law,” 5 European Review of Contract Law 1 (2009).Google Scholar
Ben-Shahar, Omri and Schneider, Carl E.. More Than You Wanted to Know: The Failure of Mandated Disclosure (Princeton, 2014).Google Scholar
Ben-Shahar, Omri and Strahilevitz, Lior Jacob. “Interpreting Contracts via Surveys and Experiments,” 92 New York University Law Review 1753 (2017).Google Scholar
Bessen, James and Meurer, Michael J.. Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk (Princeton, 2008).Google Scholar
Bimber, Bruce. The Politics of Expertise in Congress: The Rise and Fall of the Office of Technology Assessment (SUNY, 1996).Google Scholar
Bishop, Martin. “Regulatory: Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices. Amorphous New Statutory Provisions Create Serious Compliance Risks,” Inside Counsel, July 27, 2011.Google Scholar
Blackmon, Glenn and Zeckhauser, Richard. “Fragile Commitments and the Regulatory Process,” 9 Yale Journal on Regulation 73 (1992).Google Scholar
Bosso, Christopher J. Pesticides and Politics: The Life Cycle of a Public Issue (Pittsburgh, 1987).Google Scholar
Brandeis, Louis D. “What Publicity Can Do,” Harper’s Weekly, Dec. 20, 1913.Google Scholar
Braucher, Jean. “The Challenge to the Bench and the Bar Presented by the Bankruptcy Act: Resistance Need Not Be Futile,” 2007 University of Illinois Law Review 93.Google Scholar
Braucher, Jean and Littwin, Angela. “Examination as a Method of Consumer Protection,” 87 Temple Law Review 807 (2015).Google Scholar
Bressman, Lisa Schultz and Gluck, Abbe R.. “Statutory Interpretation from the Inside – An Empirical Study of Congressional Drafting, Delegation, and the Cannons: Part II,” 66 Stanford Law Review 725 (2014).Google Scholar
Bright, Jeffrey C. “Unilateral Attorney’s Fees Clauses: A Proposal to Shift to the Golden Rule,” 61 Drake Law Review 85 (2012).Google Scholar
Burk, Dan L. and Lemley, Mark A.. “Fence Posts or Sign Posts? Rethinking Patent Claim Construction,” 157 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1743 (2009).Google Scholar
Burk, Dan L. and Lemley, Mark A.. “Quantum Patent Mechanics,” 9 Lewis and Clark Law Review 29 (2005).Google Scholar
Carrigan, Christopher and Shapiro, Stuart. “What’s Wrong with the Back of the Envelope? A Call for Simple (and Timely) Benefit-Cost Analysis,” 11 Regulation and Governance 203 (2016).Google Scholar
Carson, Thomas L. Lying and Deception: Theory and Practice (Oxford, 2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casson, Mark. Information and Organization: A New Perspective on the Theory of the Firm (Oxford, 1997).Google Scholar
Chiang, Tun-Jen and Solum, Lawrence. “The Interpretation-Construction Distinction in Patent Law,” 123 Yale Law Journal 530 (2013).Google Scholar
Coglianese, Cary. “Challenging the Rules: Litigation and Bargaining in the Administrative Process,” University of Michigan Dissertation unpublished (1994).Google Scholar
Combs, Kellie and Cacozza, Albert. “Drug Promotion in the Post-Caronia World,” Food and Drug Law Institute, Update, Mar./Apr. 2013, at 14.Google Scholar
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Arbitration Study: Report to Congress 2015 (Mar. 2015).Google Scholar
Cotropia, Christopher A., Lemley, Mark, and Sampat, Bhaven. “Do Applicant Patent Citations Matter,” 42 Research Policy 844 (2013).Google Scholar
Croley, Steven P. Regulation and Public Interests: The Possibility of Good Regulatory Government (Princeton, 2008).Google Scholar
Cross, Frank B. “Shattering the Fragile Case for Judicial Review of Rulemaking,” 85 Virginia Law Review 1243 (1999).Google Scholar
Cross, Jesse. “The Staffer’s Error Doctrine,” 56 Harvard Journal on Legislation 101 (2018a).Google Scholar
Cross, Jesse. “When Courts Should Ignore Statutory Text,” George Mason Law Review (forthcoming, 2018b).Google Scholar
Curry, James M. Legislating in the Dark: Information and Power in the House of Representatives (Chicago, 2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, Devra. When Smoke Ran Like Water: Tales of Environmental Deception and the Battle against Pollution (Basic, 2002).Google Scholar
DeMatteis, Bob, Gibbs, Andy, and Neustel, Michael. The Patent Writer: How to Write Successful Patent Applications (Square One, 2006).Google Scholar
Denison, Richard. “A Primer on the New Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and What Led to It,” EDF Health (Apr. 2017).Google Scholar
Denning, Brannon and Smith, Brooks. “Uneasy Riders: The Case for a Truth-in-Legislation Amendment,” 1999 Utah Law Review 957 (1999).Google Scholar
Dranove, David, et al. “Is More Information Better? The Effects of ‘Report Cards’ on Health Care Providers,” 111 Journal of Political Economy 555 (2003).Google Scholar
Edwards, Harry. “The Role of a Judge in Modern Society: Some Reflections on Current Practice in Federal Appellate Adjudication,” 32 Cleveland Stare Law Review 385 (1983–84).Google Scholar
Eggleston, Karen, Posner, Eric A., and Zeckhauser, Richard. “The Design and Interpretation of Contracts: Why Complexity Matters, 95 Northwestern University Law Review 91 (2000).Google Scholar
Egilman, David S. and Billings, Marion. “Abuse of Epidemiology: Automobile Manufacturers Manufacture a Defense to Asbestos Liability,” 11 International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 360 (2005).Google Scholar
Farber, Daniel R. and O’Connell, Anne Joseph. “The Lost World of Administrative Law,” 92 Texas Law Review 1137 (2014).Google Scholar
Farina, Cynthia R. “Rulemaking in 140 Characters or Less: Social Networking and Public Participation in Rulemaking,” 31 Pace Law Review 382 (2011).Google Scholar
Farina, Cynthia R. and Newhart, Mary J.. Rulemaking 2.0: Understanding and Getting Better Public Participation (IBM Center for The Business of Government 201) (undated).Google Scholar
Farina, Cynthia R., Newhart, Mary J., and Blake, Cheryl. “The Problem with Words: Plain Language and Public Participation in Rulemaking,” 83 The George Washington Law Review 1358 (2015).Google Scholar
Farnsworth, E. Allan. 1 Farnsworth on Contracts (Aspen, 3rd ed., 2004).Google Scholar
Farnsworth, E. Allan. “Developments in Contract Law during the 1980’s: The Top Ten,” 41 Case Western Reserve Law Review 203 (1990).Google Scholar
Fenno, Richard F. Jr. Congressmen in Committees (Calif. 1973).Google Scholar
Field, Andrea Bear and Robb, Kathy E. B.. “EPA Rulemakings: Views from Inside and Outside,” 5 Natural Resources and Environment, Summer 5 (1995).Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. and Noll, Roger G.. “Voters, Bureaucrats and Legislators: A Rational Choice Perspective on the Growth of Bureaucracy,” 9 Journal of Public Economics 239 (1978a).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. and Noll, Roger G.. “Voters, Legislators and Bureaucracy: Institutional Design in the Public Sector,” 68 American Economic Review 256 (1978b).Google Scholar
Fisher, Liz, Pascual, Pasky, and Wagner, Wendy. “Rethinking Judicial Review of Expert Agencies,” 93 Texas Law Review 1681 (2015).Google Scholar
Frankfurter, Felix. “Some Reflections on the Reading of Statutes,” 47 Columbia Law Review 527 (1947).Google Scholar
Frakes, Michael and Wasserman, Melissa. “Is the Time Allocated to Review Patent Applications Inducing Examiners to Grant Invalid Patents?: Evidence from Micro-Level Application Data,” 99 The Review of Economics and Statistics 550 (2017a).Google Scholar
Frakes, Michael and Wasserman, Melissa. “Decreasing the Patent Office’s Incentives to Grant Invalid Patents” (The Hamilton Project, Brookings) (Dec. 2017b).Google Scholar
Frakes, Michael D. and Wasserman, Melissa F.. “Does the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Grant Too Many Bad Patents?: Evidence from a Quasi-Experiment,” 67 Stanford Law Review 613 (2015).Google Scholar
Frederickson, H. George, et al. The Public Administration Theory Primer (Westview 2d ed., 2012).Google Scholar
Friendly, Henry J. “The Gap in Lawmaking – Judges Who Can’t and Legislators Who Won’t,” 63 Columbia Law Review 787 (1963).Google Scholar
Fung, Archon, Graham, Mary, and Weil, David. Full Disclosure: The Perils and Promise of Transparency (Cambridge, 2007).Google Scholar
Gelpe, Marcia R. “Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies: Lessons from Environmental Cases,” 53 George Washington L. Rev. 1 (1985).Google Scholar
Gennaro, Valerio and Tomatis, Lorenzo. “Business Bias: How Epidemiologic Studies May Underestimate or Fail to Detect Increased Risks of Cancer and Other Diseases,” 11 International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 356 (2005).Google Scholar
Gersen, Jacob and Vermeule, Adrian. “Thin Rationality Review,” 114 Michigan Law Review 1355 (2016).Google Scholar
Gilo, David and Porat, Ariel. “The Hidden Roles of Boilerplate and Standard-form Contracts: Strategic Imposition of Transaction Costs, Segmentation of Consumers, and Anticompetitive Effects,” 104 Michigan Law Review 983 (2006).Google Scholar
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader. “A Plea for Legislative Review,” 60 Southern California Law Review 995 (1987).Google Scholar
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader and Huber, Peter. “The Intercircuit Committee,” 100 Harvard Law Review 1417 (1987).Google Scholar
Gladwell, Malcolm. “Open Secrets,” The New Yorker 44 (Jan. 8. 2007).Google Scholar
Gleick, James. The Information: A History, A Theory, A Flood (Pantheon, 2011).Google Scholar
Gluck, Abbe R. “Congress, Statutory Interpretation, and the Failure of Formalism: the CBO Canon and Other Ways That Courts Can Improve on What They Are Already Trying to Do,” 84 University of Chicago Law Review 177 (2017).Google Scholar
Gluck, Abbe R. and Bressman, Lisa Schultz. “Statutory Interpretation from the Inside – An Empirical Study of Congressional Drafting, Delegation, and the Cannons: Part I,” 65 Stanford Law Review 901 (2013).Google Scholar
Golden, John M. “Redundancy: When Law Repeats Itself,” 94 Texas Law Review 629 (2016).Google Scholar
Golden, John M. “Proliferating Patents and Patent Law’s ‘Cost Disease,’” 51 Houston Law Review 455 (2013).Google Scholar
Goldstein, Bernard D., et al. “Challenges of Unconventional Shale Gas Development: So What’s the Rush,” 27 Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics, & Public Policy 149 (2013).Google Scholar
Goldstein, Bernard. “Risk Assessment of Environmental Chemicals: If It Ain’t Broke . .,” 31 Risk Analysis 1356 (2011).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gormley, William T. Jr. “Regulatory Issue Networks in a Federal System,” 18 Polity 595 (1986).Google Scholar
Graetz, Michael J. The Decline [and Fall?] of the Income Tax (Norton, 1997).Google Scholar
Graham, Mary and Miller, Catherine. “Disclosure of Toxic Releases in the United States,” in Industrial Transformation (de Bruijn, Theo & Norberg-Bohm, Vicki, eds.) (MIT, 2005).Google Scholar
Haeberle, Kevin and Henderson, M. Todd. “Making a Market for Corporate Disclosure,” 35 Yale Journal on Regulation 383 (2018).Google Scholar
Haeder, Simon F. and Yackee, Susan Webb. “Influence and the Administrative Process: Lobbying the U.S. President’s Office of Management and Budget,” 109 American Political Science Review 507 (2015).Google Scholar
Hakenes, Hendrik and Schnabel, Isabel. “Regulatory Capture by Sophistication,” Nov. 28, 2014, available at https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/79991/1/VfS_2013_pid_164.pdf.Google Scholar
Hakes, Russell A. “Focusing on the Realities of the Contracting Process – An Essential Step to Achieve Justice in Contract Enforcement,” 12 Delaware Law Review 95 (2011).Google Scholar
Harrington, Winston, Heinzerling, Lisa, and Morgenstern, Richard D.. “What We Learned,” in Reforming Regulatory Impact Analysis 226 (Harrington, Winston, Heinzerling, Lisa & Morgenstern, Richard D., eds.) (Routledge, 2009).Google Scholar
Haynes, Bryan M., Andrews, Anne Hampton, and Jacob, C. Reade Jr., “Compelled Commercial Speech: The Food and Drug Administration’s Effort to Smoke Out the Tobacco Industry through Graphic Warning Labels,” 68 Food and Drug Law Journal 329 (2013).Google Scholar
Hernandez, Oscar and Auer, Charles. “Key Science Concepts,” in New TSCA: A Guide to the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act and Its Implementation 24 (Bergeson, Lynn L. & Auer, Charles M., eds.) (ABA, 2017).Google Scholar
Herrick, James. The History and Theory of Rhetoric: An Introduction (Allyn & Bacon, 3rd ed., 2004).Google Scholar
Holmes, Oliver Wendell. The Path of the Law (Little, Brown, 2012) (reprinted from 10 Harvard Law Review 457–58 (1896)).Google Scholar
Hill, Claire A. and King, Christopher. “How Do German Contracts Do as Much with Fewer Words,” 79 Chicago-Kent Law Review 889 (2004).Google Scholar
Ho, Daniel E. “Fudging the Nudge: Information Disclosure and Restaurant Grading,” 122 Yale Law Journal 574 (2012).Google Scholar
Hu, Henry C. “Financial Innovation and Governance Mechanisms: The Evolution of Decoupling and Transparency,” 79 Business Lawyer 347 (2015).Google Scholar
Hu, Henry C. “Disclosure Universes and Modes of Information: Banks, Innovation, and Divergent Regulatory Quests,” 31 Yale Journal on Regulation 565 (2014).Google Scholar
Hu, Henry C. “Too Complex to Depict?: Innovation, ‘Pure Information,’ and the SEC Disclosure Paradigm,” 90 Texas Law Review 1601 (2012).Google Scholar
Hu, Henry C. “Misunderstood Derivatives: The Causes of Informational Failure and the Promise of Regulatory Incrementalism,” 102 Yale Law Journal 1457 (1993).Google Scholar
Jackson, Brooks and Jamieson, Kathleen Hall. Unspun: Finding Facts in a World of Disinformation (Random House, 2007).Google Scholar
Jaffe, Adam B. and Lerner, Josh. Innovation and Its Discontents: How our Broken Patent System is Endangering Innovation and Progress, and What to Do about it (Princeton, 2004).Google Scholar
Jasanoff, Sheila. “Research Subpoenas and the Sociology of Knowledge,” 59 Law & Contemporary Problems 95 (1996).Google Scholar
Jasanoff, Sheila. Science at the Bar: Science and Technology in American Law (Harvard, 1997).Google Scholar
Jones, Gerald E. How to Lie with Charts (BookSurge 2d ed., 2006).Google Scholar
Joskow, Paul L. and Schmalensee, Richard. “Incentive Regulation for Electric Utilities,” 4 Yale Journal on Regulation 1 (1986).Google Scholar
Judge, Kathryn. “Fragmentation Nodes: A Study in Complexity, Financial Innovation, and Systemic Risk,” 64 Stanford Law Review 657 (2012).Google Scholar
Kagan, Robert. Adversarial Legalism: The American Way of Law (Harvard, 2001).Google Scholar
Kagan, Elena. “Presidential Administration,” 114 Harvard Law Review 2245 (2001).Google Scholar
Kastner, Tal. “The Persisting Ideal of Agreement in an Age of Boilerplate,” 35 Law & Social Inquiry 793 (2010).Google Scholar
Keeton, Robert E. “Insurance Law Rights at Variance with Policy Provisions: Part Two,” 83 Harv. L. Rev. 961 (1970).Google Scholar
Kinneavy, James L. A Theory of Discourse: The Aims of Discourse (Norton, 1971).Google Scholar
Knapp, Charles N. “Is There a Duty to Read?” in Revisiting the Contracts Scholarship of Stewart Macaulay 316 (Braucher, Jean, et al., eds.) (Hart, 2013).Google Scholar
Komesar, Neil K. Imperfect Alternatives: Choosing Institutions in Law, Economics, and Public Policy (Chicago, 1994).Google Scholar
Komesar, Neil and Wagner, Wendy. “Essay: The Administrative Process from the Bottom Up: Reflections on the Role, if Any, for Judicial Review,” 69 Administrative Law Review 891 (2017).Google Scholar
Krawiec, Kimberly D. “Don’t ‘Screw Joe the Plummer’: The Sausage-Making of Financial Reform,” 55 Arizona Law Review 53 (2013).Google Scholar
Kroger, John R. “Enron, Fraud, and Securities Reform: An Enron Prosecutor’s Perspective,” 76 University of Colorado Law Review 57 (2005).Google Scholar
Krutz, Glen S. Hitching a Ride: Omnibus Legislating in the U.S. Congress (Ohio, 2001).Google Scholar
Kuehn, Robert R. “Scientific Speech: Protecting the Right of Environmental Scientists to Express Professional Opinions,” 35 Environmental Law Reporter 10857 (2005).Google Scholar
Kuran, Timur and Sunstein, Cass R., “Availability Cascades and Risk Regulation,” 51 Stanford Law Review 683 (1999).Google Scholar
Kwak, James. “Cultural Capture and the Financial Crisis,” in Preventing Regulatory Capture: Special Interest Influence and How to Limit It 71 (Carpenter, Daniel & Moss, David A., eds.) (Cambridge, 2013).Google Scholar
Laffont, Jacques and Martimort, David. The Theory of Incentives: The Principal Agent Model (Princeton, 2002).Google Scholar
Leff, Arthur. Swindling and Selling (Free Press, 1976).Google Scholar
Leib, Ethan J. and Eigen, Zev J.. “Consumer Form Contracting in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction: The Unread and the Undead,” 2017 University of Illinois Law Review 65 (2017).Google Scholar
Lemley, Mark and Sampat, Bhaven. “Is the Patent Office a Rubber Stamp?” 58 Emory Law Journal 181 (2009).Google Scholar
Lewallen, Jonathan, Theriault, Sean M., and Jones, Bryan D.. “Congressional Dysfunction: An Information Processing Perspective,” 10 Regulation and Governance 179 (2016).Google Scholar
Lichtman, Doug and Lemley, Mark A.. “Rethinking the Presumption of Validity,” 60 Stanford Law Review 45 (2007).Google Scholar
Linde, Hans A. “Due Process of Lawmaking,” 55 Nebraska Law Review 197 (1976).Google Scholar
Livak, Oskar. “Finding Invention,” 40 Florida State University Law Review 57 (2012).Google Scholar
Lo, Bernard and Field, Marilyn Jane. Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice (National Acad. Press, 2009).Google Scholar
Loughran, Tim and McDonald, Bill. “Regulation and Financial Disclosure: The Impact of Plain English,” 45 Journal of Regulatory Economics 94 (2014).Google Scholar
Lutz, William. Double-Speak (HarperCollins, 1989).Google Scholar
Lyndon, Mary L. “Tort Law and Technology,” 12 Yale Journal on Regulation 137 (1995).Google Scholar
Lyndon, Mary L. “Secrecy and Innovation in Tort Law and Regulation,” 23 New Mexico Law Review 1 (1993).Google Scholar
Lyndon, Mary L. “Information Economics and Chemical Toxicity: Designing Laws to Produce and Use Data,” 87 Michigan Law Review 1795 (1989).Google Scholar
Macey, Jon. “Promoting Public-Regarding Legislation through Statutory Interpretation: An Interest Group Model,” 86 Columbia Law Review 223 (1986).Google Scholar
Macho-Stadler, Ines and Perez-Castrillo, J. David. An Introduction to the Economics of Information: Incentives and Contracts (Oxford, 2001).Google Scholar
Mammen, Christian. “Controlling the ‘Plague’: Reforming the Doctrine of Inequitable Conduct,” 24 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 1329 (2009).Google Scholar
Mann, Thomas and Ornstein, Norman. It’s Even Worse than It Looks/Was (Basic, 2012).Google Scholar
Markowitz, Gerard E. and Rosner, David. Deceit and Denial: The Deadly Politics of Industrial Pollution (Calif., 2003).Google Scholar
Mashaw, Jerry L. “Small Things Like Reasons Are Put in a Jar: Reason and Legitimacy in the Administrative State,” 70 Fordham Law Review 17 (2001).Google Scholar
Mashaw, Jerry L. Greed, Chaos, and Governance: Using Public Choice to Improve Public Law (Yale, 1999).Google Scholar
Masur, Jonathan. “Patent Inflation,” 121 Yale Law Journal 470 (2011).Google Scholar
Mathios, Alan D. “The Impact of Mandatory Disclosure Laws on Product Choices: An Analysis of the Salad Dressing Market,” 43 Journal of Law and Economics 651 (2000).Google Scholar
McCarty, Nolan. “Complexity, Capacity, and Capture,” in Preventing Regulatory Capture: Special Interest Influence and How to Limit it 99 (Carpenter, Daniel & Moss, David A., eds.) (Cambridge, 2013).Google Scholar
McCollough, Colleen. “Unconscionability as a Coherent Legal Concept,” 164 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 779 (2016).Google Scholar
McDonnell, Brett and Schwarcz, Daniel. “Regulatory Contrarians,” 89 North Carolina Law Review 1629 (2011).Google Scholar
McGarity, Thomas O. Freedom to Harm: The Lasting Legacy of the Laissez Faire Revival (Yale, 2013).Google Scholar
McGarity, Thomas O. “Administrative Law as Blood Sport: Policy Erosion in a Highly Partisan Age,” 61 Duke Law Journal 1671 (2012).Google Scholar
McGarity, Thomas O. “Daubert and the Proper Role for the Courts in Health, Safety, and Environmental Regulation,” 95 American Journal of Public Health, Supplement 1, S92 (2005).Google Scholar
McGarity, Thomas O. “Some Thoughts on ‘Deossifying’ the Rulemaking Process,” 41 Duke Law Journal 1385 (1992).Google Scholar
McGarity, Thomas O. “The Internal Structure of EPA Rulemaking,” 54 Law & Contemporary Problems 57 (1991).Google Scholar
McGarity, Thomas O. “Presidential Control of Regulatory Agency Decisionmaking,” 36 American University Law Review 443 (1987).Google Scholar
McGarity, Thomas and Wagner, Wendy. Bending Science: How Special Interests Corrupt Public Health Research (Harvard, 2008).Google Scholar
McCubbins, Mathew D. “The Legislative Design of Regulatory Structure,” 29 American Journal of Political Science 721 (1985).Google Scholar
McCubbins, Mathew D., Noll, Roger G., and Weingast, Barry R.[McNollgast]. “Administrative Procedures as Instruments of Political Control,” 3 Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization 243 (1987).Google Scholar
Melnick, R. Shep. “Administrative Law and Bureaucratic Reality,” 44 Administrative Law Review 245 (1992).Google Scholar
Melnick, R. Shep. Regulation and the Courts: The Case of the Clean Air Act (Brookings, 1983).Google Scholar
Mendelson, Nina A. “Disclosing ‘Political’ Oversight of Agency Decision Making,” 108 Michigan Law Review 1127 (2010).Google Scholar
Mercado, Raymond A. “Ensuring the Integrity of Administrative Challenges to Patents: Lessons from Reexamination,” 14 Columbia Science & Technology Law Review 558 (2013).Google Scholar
Michaels, David. Doubt is Their Product: How Industry’s Assault on Science Threatens Your Health (Oxford 2008).Google Scholar
Munafo, Marcus, et al. “A Manifesto for Reproducible Science,” 1 Nature Human Behavior 1 (2017).Google Scholar
Mills, Russell W. and Selin, Jennifer L.. “Don’t Sweat the Details! Enhancing Congressional Committee Expertise through the Use of Detailees,” 42 Legislative Studies Quarterly 611 (2017).Google Scholar
Nance, Dale A. “The Best Evidence Principle,” 73 Iowa Law Review 227 (1988).Google Scholar
National Research Council. Review of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Draft IRIS Assessment of Formaldehyde (NAS, 2011).Google Scholar
National Research Council. Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy (NAS, 2007).Google Scholar
National Research Council. Toxicity Testing: Strategies to Determine Needs and Priorities (NAS, 1984).Google Scholar
Nixon, David C., Howard, Robert M., and DeWitt, Jeff R.. “With Friends Like These: Rule-Making Comment Submissions to the Securities and Exchange Commission,” 12 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 59 (2002).Google Scholar
Noam, Eli. “Visions of the Media Age: Taming the Information Monster,” Paper presented at the Third Annual Colloquium, Alfred Herrhausen Society for International Dialogue, June 16/17, 1995, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.Google Scholar
Nou, Jennifer. “Agency Self-Insulation Under Presidential Review,” 126 Harvard Law Review 1755 (2013).Google Scholar
Oberg, Shari M. and Brubaker, Daniel C.. “Supreme Review,” 87 Michigan Business Journal 30 (2008).Google Scholar
O’Leary, Rosemary. “The Impact of Federal Court Decisions on the Policies and Administration of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,” 41 Administrative Law Review 549 (1989).Google Scholar
Oleszek, Walter J. Congressional Procedures and the Policy Process (CQ Press, 10th ed., 2015).Google Scholar
Oreskes, Naomi and Conway, Eric M.. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming (Bloomsbury, 2009).Google Scholar
Orts, Eric W. “Reflexive Environmental Law,” 89 Northwestern Law Review 1227 (1995).Google Scholar
Overton, Spencer. “The Participation Interest,” 100 Georgetown Law Journal 1259 (2012).Google Scholar
Owen, Bruce M. and Braeutigam, Ronald. The Regulation Game: Strategic Use of the Administrative Process (Ballinger, 1978).Google Scholar
Owen, Robert S. “Clarifying the Simple Assumption of the Information Load Paradigm,” in 19 Advances in Consumer Research Volume 770 (Sherry, John F. Jr. and Sternthal, Brian, eds.) (Assn. for Consumer Research, 1992).Google Scholar
Paredes, Troy A. “Blinded by the Light: Information Overload and its Consequences for Securities Regulation,” 81 Washington University Law Quarterly 417 (2003).Google Scholar
Pascual, Pasky, et al. “Making Method Visible: Improving the Quality of Science-Based Regulation,” 2 Michigan Journal of Administrative and Environmental Law 429 (2013).Google Scholar
Paulsen, Michael Stokes. “The Most Dangerous Branch: Executive Power to Say What the Law Is,” 83 Georgetown Law Journal 217 (1994).Google Scholar
Pierce, Richard J. Jr. Administrative Law Treatise (5th ed., 2010).Google Scholar
Pierce, Richard J. Jr. “Waiting for Vermont Yankee III, IV, and V? A Response to Beermann and Lawson,” 75 George Washington Law Review 902 (2007).Google Scholar
Phlips, Louis. The Economics of Imperfect Information (Cambridge, 1988).Google Scholar
Post, Robert and Shanor, Amanda. “Adam Smith’s First Amendment,” 128 Harvard Law Review Forum 165 (2015).Google Scholar
Powell, Mark R. Science at EPA: Information in the Regulatory Process (RFF, 1999).Google Scholar
Quillen, Cecil Jr. and Webster, Ogden H.. “Continuing Patent Applications and Performance of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,” 11 Federal Circuit Bar Journal 1 (2002).Google Scholar
Radin, Margaret Jane. “The Deformation of Contract in the Information Society,” 37 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 505 (2017).Google Scholar
Radin, Margaret Jane. Boilerplate: The Fine Print, Vanishing Rights, and the Rule of Law (Princeton, 2012).Google Scholar
Rai, Arti. “Growing Pains in the Administrative State: The Patent Office’s Troubled Quest for Managerial Control,” 157 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 2051 (2009).Google Scholar
Rau, Alan. “Everything You Really Need to Know about ‘Separability’ in Seventeen Simple Propositions,” 14 The American Review of International Arbitration 182 (2004).Google Scholar
Rohde, David W. “Committees and Policy Formulation,” in Institutions of American Democracy: The Legislative Branch 202 (Quirk, Paul and Binder, Sarah A., eds.) (Oxford, 2005).Google Scholar
Robbins, Paul, Hintz, John, and Moore, Sarah. Environment and Society: A Critical Introduction (Wiley, 2d ed., 2014).Google Scholar
Roberts, Kathleen M. “Section 8 – Procedures for Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements,” in New TSCA: A Guide to the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act and Its Implementation 155 (Bergeson, Lynn L. & Auer, Charles M., eds.) (ABA, 2017).Google Scholar
Rubin, Edward. “It’s Time to Make the Administrative Procedure Act Administrative,” 89 Cornell Law Review 95 (2003).Google Scholar
Rubin, Edward L. “Legislative Methodology: Some Lessons from the Truth-in-Lending Act,” 80 Georgetown Law Journal 236 (1991).Google Scholar
Rueter, Thomas J. and Roberts, Joshua H.. “Pennsylvania’s Reasonable Expectations Doctrine: The Third Circuit’s Perspective,” 45 Villanova Law Review 581 (2000).Google Scholar
Sachs, Noah M. “Jumping the Pond: Transnational Law and the Future of Chemical Regulation,” 62 Vanderbilt Law Review 1817 (2009).Google Scholar
Salzman, James and Ruhl, J. B.. “Mozart and the Red Queen: The Problem of Regulatory Accretion in the Administrative State,” 91 Georgetown Law Journal 757 (2003).Google Scholar
Sant’ Ambrogio, Michael and Staszewski, Glen. “Public Engagement with Agency Rulemaking,” ACUS Final Report, Nov. 19, 2018, available at https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Public%20Engagement%20in%20Rulemaking%20Final%20Report.pdf.Google Scholar
Schiller, Reuel E. “The Era of Deference: Courts, Expertise, and the Emergence of New Deal Administrative Law,” 106 Michigan Law Review 399 (2007).Google Scholar
Schmidt, Patrick. “Pursuing Regulatory Relief: Strategic Participation and Litigation in U.S. OSHA Rulemaking,” 4 Business and Politics 71 (2002).Google Scholar
Schuck, Peter H. “Legal Complexity: Some Causes, Consequences, and Cures,” 42 Duke Law Journal 1 (1992).Google Scholar
Schulz, Karen Bradshaw. “Information Flooding,” 48 Indiana Law Review 755 (2015).Google Scholar
Schwarcz, Daniel. “Preventing Capture Through Consumer Empowerment Programs: Some Evidence from Insurance Regulation,” in Preventing Regulatory Capture 365 (Carpenter, Daniel & Moss, David A., eds.) (Cambridge, 2014).Google Scholar
Schwarcz, Steven L. “Intrinsic Imbalance: The Impact of Income Disparity on Financial Regulation,”78 Law and Contemporary Problems 97 (2015).Google Scholar
Schwartz, Alan and Wilde, Louis L.. “Intervening in Markets on the Basis of Imperfect Information: A Legal and Economic Analysis,” 127 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 630 (1979).Google Scholar
Seidenfeld, Mark. “A Table of Requirements for Federal Administrative Rulemaking,” 27 Florida State University Law Review 533 (2000).Google Scholar
Seidenfeld, Mark. “A Civic Republican Justification for the Bureaucratic State,” 105 Harvard Law Review 1511 (1992).Google Scholar
Seifter, Miriam. “Second-Order Participation in Administrative Law,” 63 UCLA Law Review 1300 (2016).Google Scholar
Seymore, Sean B. “Uninformative Patents,” 55 Houston Law Review 377 (2017).Google Scholar
Shafrin, Jason. “Operating on Commission: Analyzing How Physician Financial Incentives Affect Surgery Rates,” 19 Health Econonomics 562 (2010).Google Scholar
Shaiko, Ronald G. Voices and Echoes for the Environment: Public Interest Representation in the 1990s and Beyond (Columbia, 1999).Google Scholar
Shannon, Claude E. and Weaver, Warren. The Mathematical Theory of Communication (Illinois, 1971).Google Scholar
Shapiro, Martin. “On Predicting the Future of Administrative Law,” 6 Regulation 18 (1982).Google Scholar
Shapiro, Sidney, et al. “The Enlightenment of Administrative Law: Looking Inside the Agency for Legitimacy,” 47 Wake Forest Law Review 463 (2012).Google Scholar
Shapiro, Stuart. “Can Analysis of Policy Decisions Spur Participation?” 2018 J. Benefit Cost Anal. 1.Google Scholar
Shenk, David. Data Smog: Surviving the Information Glut (Harper, 1997).Google Scholar
Shkabatur, Jennifer. “Transparency with(out) Accountability: Open Government in the United States,” 31 Yale Law and Policy Review 79 (2012).Google Scholar
Silver, Nate. The Signal and the Noise: The Art and Science of Prediction (Penguin, 2012).Google Scholar
Simon, Herbert A. Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decisionmaking Processes in Administrative Organizations (Free Press 4th ed., 1997).Google Scholar
Sinclair, Barbara. Unorthodox Lawmaking: New Legislative Processes in the U.S. Congress (C.Q. Press, 5th ed., 2016).Google Scholar
Slawson, W. David. “Contractual Discretionary Power: A Law to Prevent Deceptive Contracting by Standard Form,” 2006 Michigan State Law Review 863.Google Scholar
Smismans, Stijn. “Regulatory Procedure and Participation at the European Union,” in Comparative Law and Regulation: Understanding the Global Regulatory Process 129 (Bignami, Francesca & Zaring, David, eds.) (Elgar, 2016).Google Scholar
Smith, Henry E. “The Language of Property: Form, Context, and Audience,” 55 Stanford Law Review 1105 (2003).Google Scholar
Solove, Daniel J. and Hartzog, Woodrow. “The FTC and the New Common Law of Privacy,” 114 Columbia Law Review 583 (2014).Google Scholar
Sommer, Henry L. “Trying to Make Sense out of Nonsense,” 79 American Bankruptcy Law Journal 191 (2005).Google Scholar
Steinzor, Rena and Shapiro, Sidney. Special Interests, Government, and Threats to Health, Safety, and the Environment (Chicago, 2010).Google Scholar
Stewart, Richard B. “Vermont Yankee and the Evolution of Administrative Procedure,” 91 Harvard Law Review 1805 (1978).Google Scholar
Stewart, Richard B. “The Reformation of American Administrative Law,” 88 Harvard Law Review 1669 (1975).Google Scholar
Stiglitz, Joseph E. “The Contributions of the Economics of Information to Twentieth Century Economics,” 115 Quarterly Journal of Economics 1441 (2000).Google Scholar
Strahilevitz, Lior and Kugler, Matthew. “Is Privacy Policy Language Irrelevant to Consumers?” 45 The Journal of Legal Studies S69 (2016).Google Scholar
Strauss, Peter L. “From Expertise to Politics: The Transformation of American Rulemaking,” 31 Wake Forest Law Review 745 (1996).Google Scholar
Streufert, Siegfried and Driver, Michael J.. “Conceptual Structure, Information Load, and Perceptual Complexity,” 3 Psychonomic Science 249, 250 (1965).Google Scholar
Suchan, Jim. “The Effect of High-Impact Writing on Decision Making within a Public Sector Bureaucracy,” 35 The Journal of Business Communication 299 (1998).Google Scholar
Thaler, Richard H. “Nudge, Not Sludge,” 361 Science 431(2018).Google Scholar
Traft, Michael J. “Special Considerations in Appellate Briefs,” 1 Appellate Practice in Massachusetts (2008).Google Scholar
Tversky, Amon and Kahneman, Daniel. “Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases,” 185 Science 1124 (1974).Google Scholar
U.S. GAO, Report No. GAO-05–458. “Chemical Regulation: Options Exist to Improve EPA’s Ability to Assess Health Risks and Manage its Chemical Review Program” (2005).Google Scholar
VanSickle-Ward, Rachel. The Devil is in the Details: Understanding the Causes of Policy Specificity and Ambiguity (SUNY, 2014).Google Scholar
Virelli, Louis J. III “Deconstructing Arbitrary and Capricious Review,” 92 North Carolina Law Review 721 (2014).Google Scholar
Virelli, Louis J. III “Scientific Peer Review and Administrative Legitimacy,” 61 Administrative Law Review 723 (2009).Google Scholar
Viscusi, W. Kip. “Individual Rationality, Hazard Warnings, and the Foundations of Tort Law,” 48 Rutgers Law Review 625 (1996).Google Scholar
Wagner, R. Polk. “Understanding Patent-Quality Mechanisms,” 157 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 2135 (2009).Google Scholar
Wagner, Wendy E. “Participation in Administrative Process,” in Comparative Law and Regulation: National, International, and Transnational Perspectives 109 (Bignami, Francesca & Zaring, David, eds.) (Elgar, 2016).Google Scholar
Wagner, Wendy E. “A Place for Agency Expertise: Reconciling Agency Expertise with Presidential Power,” 115 Columbia Law Review 2019 (2015).Google Scholar
Wagner, Wendy E. “Racing to the Top: How Regulation Can Be Used to Create Incentives for Industry to Improve Environmental Quality,” 29 Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law 1 (2014).Google Scholar
Wagner, Wendy E. “Administrative Law, Filter Failure, and Information Capture,” 59 Duke Law Journal. 1321 (2010).Google Scholar
Wagner, Wendy E. “The Clean Air Interstate Rule’s Regulatory Impact Analysis: Advocacy Dressed Up as Policy Analysis,” in Reforming Regulatory Impact Analysis 56 (Morgenstern, Richard, et al., eds.) (RFF, 2009).Google Scholar
Wagner, Wendy E. “Using Competition-Based Regulation to Bridge the Toxics Data Gap,” 83 Indiana Law Journal 629 (2008).Google Scholar
Wagner, Wendy E. “The ‘Bad Science’ Fiction: Reclaiming the Debate over the Role of Science in Public Health and Environmental Regulation,” 66 Law & Contemporary Problems, Autumn 2003, at 63.Google Scholar
Wagner, Wendy E. “Choosing Ignorance in the Manufacture of Toxic Products,” 82 Cornell Law Review 773 (1997).Google Scholar
Wagner, Wendy E., “The Science Charade in Toxic Risk Regulation,” 95 Columbia Law Review 1613 (1995).Google Scholar
Wagner, Wendy E. and Michaels, David. “Equal Treatment for Regulatory Science: Extending the Controls Governing the Quality of Public Research to Private Research,” 30 American Journal of Law & Medicine 119 (2004).Google Scholar
Wagner, Wendy E., Barnes, Katherine, and Peters, Lisa. “Rulemaking in the Shade: An Empirical Study of EPA’s Air Toxic Emission Standards,” 63 Administrative Law Review 99 (2011).Google Scholar
Walker, Christopher J. “Legislating in the Shadows,” 165 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1377 (2017).Google Scholar
Wasserman, Melissa. “The PTO’s Asymmetric Incentives: Pressure to Expand Substantive Patent Law,” 72 Ohio State Law Journal 379 (2011).Google Scholar
Weber, Robert F. “Structural Regulation as Antidote to Complexity Capture,” 49 American Business Law Journal 643 (2012).Google Scholar
Weber, Robert F. “New Governance, Financial Regulation, and Challenges to Legitimacy: The Example of the Internal Models Approach to Capital Adequacy Regulation,” 62 Administrative Law Review 783 (2010).Google Scholar
West, William F. “Formal Procedures, Informal Processes, Accountability and Responsiveness in Bureaucratic Policy Making: An Institutional Policy Analysis,” 64 Public Administration Review 66 (2004).Google Scholar
Westbrook, David A. “Corporation Law After Enron: The Possibility of a Capitalist Reimagination,” 92 Georgetown Law Journal 61(2003).Google Scholar
Whitford, William C. “The Functions of Disclosure Regulation in Consumer Transactions,” 1973 Wisconsin Law Review 400.Google Scholar
Willis, Lauren E. “The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Quest for Consumer Comprehension,” 3 Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences 74 (2017).Google Scholar
Willis, Lauren E. “Performance-Based Consumer Law,” 82 University of Chicago Law Review 1309 (2015).Google Scholar
Willis, Lauren E. “Decisionmaking and the Limits of Disclosure: The Problem of Predatory Lending: Price,” 65 Maryland Law Review 707 (2006).Google Scholar
Wilson, James Q. Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It (Basic, 1991).Google Scholar
Wilson, James Q. The Politics of Regulation (Basic, 1980).Google Scholar
Wilson, Janet and Ogunseitan, Oladele A.. “A Call for Better Toxics Policy Reform,” 59 Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 30 (2017).Google Scholar
Yackee, Jason W. and Yackee, Susan W.. “A Bias toward Business? Assessing Interest Group Influence on the Bureaucracy,” 68 Journal of Politics 128 (2006).Google Scholar
Young, Kevin L., Marple, Tim, and Heilman, James. “Beyond the Revolving Door: Advocacy Behavior and Social Distance to Financial Regulators,” 19 Business and Politics 327 (2017).Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×