Volume Two    Spring 2006    Number Two

ARTICLES

CLARIFYING THE CONFUSION OF 21 U.S.C. § 848(q): WHEN INDIGENT STATE CLEMENCY PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED TO FEDERALLY-FUNDED COUNSEL Gavin S. Martinson
BE MORE SPECIFIC!  CAN WRITING A DETAILED ARBITRATION AGREEMENT EXPAND JUDICIAL REVIEW UNDER THE FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT? Kristen M. Blankley
WHEN ACCESS TO THE BENEFITS OF PUBLIC SERVICES IS HANDICAPPED: AN ANALYSIS OF THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT'S DECISION IN WISCONSIN COMMUNITY SERVICE V. CITY OF MILWAUKEE AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR DISABLED AMERICANS Jonathan M. Lave & Mitchell P. Zeff


FIRST IMPRESSIONS

FIRST IMPRESSIONS Circuit Review Staff

CURRENT CIRCUIT SPLITS
CURRENT CIRCUIT SPLITS Circuit Review Staff

COMMENTS
THE MORE THINGS CHANGE, THE MORE THEY STAY THE SAME: GRABLE & SONS V. DARUE ENGINEERING DOES NOT RESOLVE THE SPLIT OVER MERRELL DOW V. THOMPSON Jason Pozner
DO YOU GROK? SUBSTANTIAL CERTAINTY IN CONTRIBUTORY COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT Cynthia Miller
GONZALEZ V. RAICH AND THE FEDERAL CHILD PORNOGRAPHY STATUTES: BALANCING THE COMMERCE CLAUSE AND STATE SOVEREIGNTY Sarah J. Farley