n Guilty Men:

I ran across a cite to this 1997 article (146 U. Penn. L. Rev. 173) by my brother, and decided to do a quick search for how often it has been cited elsewhere.

It turns out that the Westlaw TP-ALL count is 55, plus 6 cites visible on Amazon, and 7 more on Google Scholar -- very good for a piece written by someone who at the time hadn't even gone to law school, and who has only now taken a tenure-track teaching job. Plus it's "One of the best law review articles ever written on any subject" (and, no, that's not just my view, or our mother's). Cool.

It really is a great article. It has another cite coming soon, from me.
6.11.2008 7:13pm
I've never cited it. Hmm, but maybe I should try citing it and see how it goes.
6.11.2008 7:31pm
Dave N (mail):
Better for 100 law review articles to go uncited than to shamelessly praise your brother's work. :-)
6.11.2008 7:58pm
Dave N (mail):
Actually, I have to admit, it is a cool article.
6.11.2008 7:59pm
Bruce F. Webster (mail) (www):
OK, that was a hoot. Well done, I say, well done. ..bruce..
6.11.2008 8:16pm
The students at Tulane (is that right? I hope so) are in for a bigger treat than I had anticipated.
6.11.2008 9:02pm
Don Meaker (mail):
I submit that Eugene and Sasha should be the first brothers on the Supreme Court.

Give you a few more weeks seasoning, but still!
6.11.2008 9:23pm
jccamp (mail):
Not many law review articles make me smile. This was wonderful. "XI. Advice for Criminals" Perfect.

Although I think I liked the Conclusions the best.
6.11.2008 9:53pm
Dave Hardy (mail) (www):
Sniff. I would have hoped my two coauthored pieces on the Third Amendment would have made the list. They define the jurisprudence on the subject, evidenced by the fact that no one has seen a need to publish on it since.

West still refuses to publish my casebook on the topic, with the flimsy excuse that it is only seven pages in length. I'm a concise writer -- why should that be a barrier?
6.11.2008 10:00pm
Bill Poser (mail) (www):
Dave Hardy,

Maybe you could make your casebook more attractive to publishers by extending it to cover 18th amendment jurisprudence. Just think, two amendments instead of one, at no additional cost or carbon!
6.11.2008 10:12pm
Dave N (mail):
David Hardy,

You could also expound on the $20 rule in the Seventh Amendment--and court interpretations of both Article VII and the 27th Amendment.
6.11.2008 10:39pm
Dave Hardy (mail) (www):
Those are too easy. Anyone could do them. Sorta like asking for directions on a trip. No male asks for directions! And the 27th, or 11th, or whatever it should be ... way too recent to be really obscure.
6.11.2008 11:01pm
Sasha Volokh (mail) (www):
gwinje: Emory, not Tulane.
6.11.2008 11:32pm
Damn. I had Nawlins on the brain.
6.12.2008 12:33am
Sweet article too.
6.12.2008 12:35am
Possible future article: "How many Dicta Get You a Holding?"
6.12.2008 12:38am
No comment about the recent news on the Volokh brothers' judge?
6.12.2008 9:56am
"Better to let 100 guilty men go free than to chase after them." Chief Wiggum.
6.12.2008 11:28am
This clearly is the best research paper ever: it identifies copious amounts of fruitful topics for future research!
6.13.2008 4:09pm