Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Agent Orange (1)
- Arkansas Writers Project Inc. v. Ragland (1)
- CERCLA (1)
- Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1)
- Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (1)
-
- Corrugated Container Antitrust (1)
- EPA (1)
- Edward J. Debartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Building and Construction Trades Council (1)
- Environmental Protection Agency (1)
- Exxon Valdez (1)
- FCC v. League of Women Voters (1)
- Fallowfield v. Strunk (1)
- Family Planning Services and Population Research Act (1)
- Fisher Bros. v. Cambridge Lee Industries (1)
- Haas v. Pittsburgh National Bank (1)
- Habermas (1)
- Hutchison v. Wells (1)
- In re Cenco Inc. Securities Litigation (1)
- Johnson v. Kay (1)
- Keyishian v. Board of Regents (1)
- Kronfeld v. Transworld Airlines (1)
- Martin v. University of South Alabama (1)
- Meyer v. Citizens and Southern National Bank (1)
- Miller v. Mackey International (1)
- NEPACCO (1)
- NLRB v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago (1)
- Pease & Curren Refining Inc. v. Spectrolab (1)
- People Who Care v. Rockford Board of Education District No. 205 (1)
- Perry v. Sindermann (1)
- Pray v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp. (1)
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
The Discourse Ethics Alternative To Rust V. Sullivan, Gary Charles Leedes
The Discourse Ethics Alternative To Rust V. Sullivan, Gary Charles Leedes
University of Richmond Law Review
Legal theorists in the United States should pay more attention to Jiirgen Habermas. His theory of discourse ethics provides us with an enriched understanding of the term "normative validity." Discourse ethics "is concerned ...with the grounding of normativity . . .; its central focus is the . . . specification of appropriate validation procedures."' Once participants in political discourse agree on validation procedures, they are then in a position to achieve a fully rational consensus about normatively right laws that are in everyone's best interests.
The Availability Of Attorneys' Fees As A Necessary Cost Of Response In Private Cost-Recovery Actions Under Cercla, Heather M. Harvey
The Availability Of Attorneys' Fees As A Necessary Cost Of Response In Private Cost-Recovery Actions Under Cercla, Heather M. Harvey
University of Richmond Law Review
In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA"). Its purpose was to remedy the environmental problems caused by abandoned hazardous waste sites. Prior to 1980, hazardous waste had been regulated primarily by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA") and, to a lesser extent, by the Toxic Substances Control Act ("TSCA"). These statutes focused on the prevention of hazardous waste problems. Consequently, they proved inadequate to deal with the increasing threats posed by existing hazardous waste sites.' Congress drafted CERCLA to fill in the gap left by prior legislation.
Procedural Solutions To The Attorney's Fee Problem In Complex Litigation, Christopher P. Lu
Procedural Solutions To The Attorney's Fee Problem In Complex Litigation, Christopher P. Lu
University of Richmond Law Review
Justice William Brennan once observed that disputes about attorneys' fees are "one of the least socially productive types of litigation imaginable." Socially productive or not, attorneys' fees are a major problem in complex litigation today because of both the time and resources needed to determine appropriate fees and the public perception that fees are excessive. While the attorneys' fee problem is not unique to complex suits, the problem is magnified because: 1) complex suits are often more protracted than ordinary suits and necessarily require more lawyers; 2) many fee shifting statutes can be triggered in complex suits; and 3) class …