Page de couverture de Ipse Dixit

Ipse Dixit

Ipse Dixit

Auteur(s): CC0/Public Domain
Écouter gratuitement

À propos de cet audio

Ipse Dixit is a podcast on legal scholarship. Each episode of Ipse Dixit features a different guest discussing their scholarship. The podcast also features several special series.

  1. "From the Archives" consists historical recordings potentially of interest to legal scholars and lawyers.
  2. "The Homicide Squad" consists of investigations of the true stories behind different murder ballads, as well as examples of how different musicians have interpreted the song over time.
  3. "The Day Antitrust Died?" is co-hosted with Ramsi Woodcock, Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law, and consists of oral histories of the 1974 Airlie House Conference on antitrust law, a pivotal moment in the history of antitrust theory and policy.

The hosts of Ipse Dixit are:

  • Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Associate Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law
  • Luce Nguyen, a student at Oberlin College and the co-founder of the Oberlin Policy Research Institute, an undergraduate public policy organization based at Oberlin College
  • Maybell Romero, Assistant Professor of Law at Northern Illinois University College of Law
  • Antonia Eliason, Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Mississippi School of Law
  • Saurabh Vishnubhakat, Associate Professor of Law at Texas A&M School of Law
  • John Culhane, Professor of Law at Widener University Delaware Law School
  • Benjamin Edwards, Associate Professor of Law at the UNLV William S. Boyd School of Law
  • Matthew Bruckner, Associate Professor of Law at Howard University School of Law

Comments and suggestions are always welcome at brianlfrye@gmail.com. You can follow the Ipse Dixit on Twitter at @IpseDixitPod.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

CC0/Public Domain Philosophie Sciences sociales
Épisodes
  • Thomas Basboll on Plagiarism

    Thomas Basboll on Plagiarism
    Aug 29 2025

    In this episode, Thomas Basboll, a resident writing consultant at the Copenhagen Business School and the author of the Inframethodology blog, discusses his work on plagiarism, among other things. Basboll begins by introducing himself. He then discusses a series of articles he wrote on a plagiarism incident in the discipline of critical management studies. He reflects on the reaction to his articles - or the lack thereof - and what it can tell us about the institutional role of academic plagiarism norms. He also discusses alternative approaches to pedagogy and plagiarism that could be more effective. Basboll is on Twitter.

    This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye and on Bluesky at @brianlfrye.bsky.social.

    Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
    Voir plus Voir moins
    53 min
  • Bill Childs on Amusement Park Law

    Bill Childs on Amusement Park Law
    Aug 19 2025

    In this episode, Bill Childs, a partner at Bowman and Brooke LLP and an adjunct professor at Mitchell Hamline School of Law, discusses his new casebook "Recreation and Risk," which is published by Carolina Academic Press. The book provides all the material for a law school class on the law of amusement parks, which covers torts, contracts, insurance, criminal law, and more. Childs begins by explaining how he became interested in amusement parks and the legal issues surrounding them. Then he explains why the subject matter makes for such an effective law school class, with a significant practical and experiential element. Childs is on Bluesky.

    This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye and on Bluesky at @brianlfrye.bsky.social.

    Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
    Voir plus Voir moins
    34 min
  • Courtney Cox on Super-Dicta

    Courtney Cox on Super-Dicta
    Aug 17 2025

    In this episode, Courtney Cox, Associate Professor of Law at Fordham University School of Law, discusses her new article "Super-Dicta," which is published in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review. Cox begins by explaining what she means by "super-dicta," then reflects on what the concept can tell us about the judging process and jurisprudence more generally. Here is the abstract:

    A weird thing happens when a conscientious, rational judge lacks certainty and has the humility to know it: she will often decide cases for reasons that differ from the reasons in her opinions. To illustrate, suppose she thinks it’s 50/50 whether Defendant’s copying infringed or was fair use. She could rationally flip a coin. But if she does, and she finds for Defendant, it will not be because of fair use. Rather, it will be because she thought it was 50/50 whether the copying was fair use—and the coin landed tails.Coin-flip cases are rare, but uncertainty is not. There are more sophisticated tools for responding rationally when the judge’s doubts about what she ought to do are not in complete equipoise. And so, the point remains: when a judge is uncertain about what she ought to do and is rational in pursuit of that aim, the actual reason for her decision and the ratio decidendi will diverge. And unlike much of the literature arguing we cannot take opinions at face value, the phenomenon I describe arises from anti-cynical premises: a judge who aims at what is right.I call the judge’s actual reasoning “Super-Dicta.” Super-Dicta is so-called because it is super important: it is directly necessary to the decision—and not just causally, but as part of a judge’s rationale. But even though it is the decisive reasoning, it would appear to have the status of dicta: whether expressed, or not, Super-Dicta is not purely objective, limited to law or facts. It encompasses the judge’s subjective reasoning based on her uncertainty. That is, it is reasoning that resolves a case that is hard for the judge, not just hard.Should Super-Dicta appear in an opinion? That normative question is probably moot, at least if understood as one of substantive jurisprudence. While a coin flip may be rational, disclosing it is not. Accordingly, a judge responding rationally to uncertainty will not disclose that in her opinion. And if she tries, the resulting legal standard would turn on an odd consideration: facts about the judge, namely, that she is uncertain and the extent of her doubts. The result: judicial opinions—at least those by mere mortals—can be transparent or objective, but not both. So-called “hard case” doctrines must be revisited in this light.

    Cox is on Twitter and Bluesky.

    This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye and on Bluesky at @brianlfrye.bsky.social.

    Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
    Voir plus Voir moins
    42 min
Pas encore de commentaire