Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Abolition Of Self-Help Repossession: The Poor Pay Even More, James J. White
The Abolition Of Self-Help Repossession: The Poor Pay Even More, James J. White
Articles
In this paper I propose to identify possible ways in which a court could uphold the constitutionality of section 9-503 without an explicit rejection of Fuentes v. Shevin. It is my thesis that Fuentes v. Shevin is probably an undesirable outcome, and that the application of the same doctrine to self-help repossession is certainly undesirable and would constitute due process gone berserk. My arguments will not be novel; each has been suggested by the courts that have considered this matter, or by the briefs of the lawyers who have argued these cases. I cannot even claim to have collected the …
Carmack Amendment In The State Courts, Wayland H. Sanford
Carmack Amendment In The State Courts, Wayland H. Sanford
Michigan Law Review
Prior to the leading case of Adams Express Co. v. Croninger,'- decided January 6th, 1913, there was much diversity in the decisions of the state courts as to the validity of contracts between shippers and carriers limiting the amount of the carrier's liability for injuries to goods shipped. Such limitations were held valid in some states, but invalid in others, and in some were declared invalid by statutes or constitutional provisions.2 State rules were applied to interstate as well as intrastate shipments, it being supposed that Congress had not legislated upon the subject. The CARMACK AmlNDVNT of i9o6s provided that …
State Regulations Affecting Interstate Commerce, Horace Lafayette Wilgus
State Regulations Affecting Interstate Commerce, Horace Lafayette Wilgus
Articles
The line between regulations of intrastate and interstate commerce is difficult to draw and hard to maintain. This is well illustrated in the recent case of St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company v. Arkansas, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States April 4, 1910, Advance Sheets, May I, 1910, p. 476, 30 Sup.Ct. 476.