Pesetsky, David, and Esther Torrego. 2001. "T-to-C Movement: causes and consequences." in Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. pp. 355-426.
Argues that Nominative Case and Tense are really the same thing.
Lasnik, Howard. 2003. Minimalist Investigations in Linguistic Theory.Routledge.
Chapter 3 talks about enlightened self-interest.
Zaenen, Annie, Joan Maling and Hoskuldur Thrainsson. 1985. "Case and Grammatical Functions: the Icelandic Passive." Natural Language and Linguistic Theory3:441-484.
Argues that non-nominative subjects in Icelandic really are subjects, even when there's another nominative argument in the clause.
Cowper, Elizabeth. 1985. "What is a subject? Non-nominative subjects in Icelandic." Proceedings of NELS 18:94-108.
Argues that the notion of subject is not a unified one; that the argument in Spec/IP has some subject properties, while the nominative argument with which the verb agrees has others.
Béjar, Susana, and Milan Rezac. 2001. "Person licensing and the derivation of PCC effects." Paper presented at LSRL in Toronto; to appear in the proceedings. (.pdf file)
Talks about, among other things, why structural and inherent case seem to behave differently.
Lasnik, Howard, and Mamoru Saito. 1984. "On the Nature of Proper Government. Linguistic Inquiry15:235-289.
Long paper, in which arguments can be found that intermediate Comp's (between the base/merge position of a wh-phrase and the Comp in whose specifier the phrase ends up) do not bear the feature [+wh].
Repeat mentions of Béjar 2003, Chomsky's "Derivation by Phase" (see list from Sept. 10)